Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Chesterfield, in the room of the right hon. Eric Graham Varley (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Airport Competition Policy

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if the current consultation on airline competition policy will also include an investigation of competition between airports as well.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): In its consultation letter the Civil Aviation Authority indicated that it will be considering the competitive imbalance between airports as well as between British Airways and other British airlines.

Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no competition between airports at present? The Civil Aviation Authority designates the airport and the air service licence, and the operator has no choice. Is there any reason why, following the denationalisation of the British Airports Authority, which I trust is still high on my right hon. Friend's agenda, the rules should not be changed so that licences specify, for example, just London without specifying which airport, thus leaving the three London airports to compete for the airline's business?

Mr. Mitchell: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are reviewing the options on how to introduce private capital into the British Airports Authority. Most air service agreements that are negotiated internationally merely designate London. In view of the pressure on Heathrow, the licence specifies the airport in order to steer operators away from Heathrow.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister take the opportunity of telling the House and British Midland Airways that he will not allow it to land transatlantic flights at Glasgow airport and thus kill off, by unfair competition, Prestwick airport and ensure its closure?

Mr. Mitchell: That is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, but appeals can be taken to Ministers. It would be improper for me to make any comment at this stage.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will the consultations include a discussion on the absurd situation whereby the British

Airports Authority is sustained almost entirely by duty-free shops? Will there be consideration of the sensible proposal, which I have made a number of times already, that duty-free shops should be at the point of arrival rather than the point of departure?

Mr. Mitchell: I take note of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but it does not arise at this stage.

Mr. McCrindle: If, as my hon. Friend suggested, it remains the Government's policy and preferred approach to attract airline traffic away from the congested Heathrow, presumably towards the underutilised Gatwick, will he explain why the British Airports Authority is proposing to increase landing charges at Gatwick by 10 per cent. from April, while leaving landing charges at Heathrow unchanged?

Mr. Mitchell: I would think that the landing charges at Heathrow are high enough as they are. It is for the British Airports Authority to choose how it gains its net income. It has a target which it is expected to achieve.

Mr. Prescott: Did the Minister read this weekend the British Airways evidence to the CAA? It makes it clear that privatisation is irrelevant to competition or the sound development of the aviation industry in the United Kingdom. If the CAA comes to the same conclusion, will the Minister reconsider his obsession with privatisation, which does little for competition and robs the taxpayer of his investment?

Mr. Mitchell: We are considering all the options at present for introducing private capital into the BAA.

Motor Insurance

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the drafting of the European Community directive on motor insurance; and when he expects to lay the directive before Parliament.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am pleased to say that the directive was adopted on 30 December 1983. My officials are in touch with insurers with a view to producing workable proposals for its implementation, on which I intend to consult representative bodies.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend has been most helpful in the matter. She will know that, as the law stands, innocent parties to a motor accident can suffer unfairly. As it will be some time, I understand, before the directive, if it is agreed, can be implemented in member countries, will my hon. Friend keep an open mind and try to implement the provisions of the directive earlier in this country, if necessary?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to the directive. As he and other hon. Members may know, member states are required to amend their legislation by 31 December 1987 and to bring the changes into effect by 31 December 1988. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce the amendments as soon as we are ready to do so after thorough consultation in this country.

British Rail

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail later this week to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Secretary of State tell the chairman that he does not think much of his attempts to muzzle the criticism of railway managers about the appalling level of investment in the industry? Does he not accept that it is ludicrous to claim that the railways have enough investment, when he has lopped £200 million off what they wanted, and when in 1981–82 the British Railways Board called for more investment? Does he accept that hon. Members, the railway unions and the travelling public know that more investment is needed for a proper service, and that we shall go on arguing that case?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The external financing limit, at £953 million this year, is unlikely to be reached by the railways. The level for next year, of £936 million, is exactly what British Rail asked for. We have not reduced the figure it sought. With regard to the future, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is no constraint upon investment by BR provided that that investment is viable.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reach agreement with the chairman of British Rail, and quickly deal with any obstacles that may remain, so that the electrification of the east coast line can proceed as quickly as possible?

Mr. Ridley: I am still awaiting the final details of the inter-city strategy, which it is necessary to have before we can take a decision on the east coast main line electrification project. As soon as we receive them we shall move as speedily as possible to a decision.

Mr. Pavitt: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Rail, will he undertake, if the subject of the possible change of the Marylebone railway to an express bus route is discussed, to receive at the same time a deputation, led by me, of the transport committee of the London borough of Brent, because its roads and services would be badly affected?

Mr. Ridley: The first question in relation to Marylebone will be whether British Rail puts in an application to close the station and the line, in which case the matter will probably come to me on appeal. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to say anything in advance of those submissions. However, I am always absolutely delighted to see the hon. Gentleman and his friends on any subject at any time.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any intention by British Rail to promote a private Member's Bill for the construction of a rail link to Stansted, ahead of any decision by the Government to develop that airport further?

Mr. Ridley: I am surrounded by such questions. I would be in a quasi-judicial position if I answered them. I cannot comment on anything to do with Stansted either. However, I confirm to my hon. Friend that no such application has reached me.

Mr. Ron Lewis: In view of the letter which the chairman of the British Railways Board is supposed to have sent to the top brass and others, when the Secretary

of State meets the chairman this week will he tell him that his services are no longer required because he has let the railways and railwaymen down?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the chairman of British Rail. He has done a remarkable job since becoming chairman to pull the railway together and to improve its efficiency without restricting services in any way. The hon. Gentleman would further his cause a little better if he stopped taking such a negative and critical attitude.

Mr. Soames: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he congratulate him on the excellent investment that is being made in the Gatwick line? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that that investment will be able to continue further down the line in future?

Mr. Ridley: I shall be happy to pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations. Considerable efforts have been put into improving the service to Gatwick in every respect. As for further down the line, I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to the chairman. Especially after the kind words that he has said about him today, he might give my hon. Friend a favourable answer.

Mr. Snape: With regard to the original question whether the chairman of British Rail was right to attempt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, to muzzle railway management, will the Secretary of State concede that Mr. Bob Reid has been a senior executive of British Rail for many years and presumably put his name to the 1981–82 corporate plan, which demanded more investment, and that for him now to say that there is sufficient investment in the railways shows that either he did not do his sums properly in the first place, or that kowtowing to the right hon. Gentleman is one of his conditions or terms of employment?

Mr. Ridley: That allegation is also totally unworthy. It is not necessarily the case that the more investment the better. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to ground nuts. That was not necessarily a good thing. The investment with which the railways have been provided under the Government and the investment that it wants for the future will be provided, provided that the investment is sound.

British Rail

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what were the amounts of Government subsidy to the British Railways Board for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, respectively.

Mr. David Mitchell: Central Government public service obligation grant was as follows: 1979, £485 million; 1980, £576 million; 1981, £749 million; 1982, £817 million; 1983, £819 million, subject to adjustment.

Mr. Flannery: When the Minister talks about the chairman of British Rail doing his best to pull the railways together, will he and his colleagues bear in mind that the attitude of the general public is that the chairman is doing his best to pull the railways apart? Is the Minister aware that, no matter how much it sounds as though investment is increasing, the reality is that lines are ready to close, people are fearful of their jobs, fewer trains run, there are fewer coaches per train and many lines such as that from


St. Pancras to Sheffield are now regarded by railway men and the public as in grave danger of disappearing because of the Serpell report being introduced by the back door, the Bow group report which was published today and many other reports, which seem to be emerging simply to destroy our railways?

Mr. Mitchell: I resent the continuing attacks upon British Rail. Far from the chairman doing his best to pull the railways apart, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will find that no major changes in the timetable are anticipated this year and that there will be consolidation. Moreover, there have been substantial improvements as a result of the introduction of high-speed trains last year.

Mr. Gregory: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the British Railways Board has secured the right amount of external financing limit? Will my hon. Friend encourage the board to invest up to that level, which it has not done previously?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not expect that the external financing limit will impose any constraints on British Rail's investment intentions this year.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister tell British Rail that it must not go ahead with its proposal to close Ardrossan harbour station as that would clash very heavily with the Government's policy to help island communities? The closure of that station would adversely affect the tourist trade and local business men on the island of Arran.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Moate: Do not the figures that my hon. Friend has given indicate that, far from cutting the railways, the Government have increased support from the level of £485 million under a Labour Government to £819 million under this Government? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind the Opposition that the railway mileage was cut far more dramatically under the last Labour Government than it ever was under a Conservative Government?

Mr. Mitchell: The increase in constant prices has been some £83 million since 1979. I can say to my hon. Friend that we do not regard subsidy as a virility symbol and we are delighted that British Rail anticipates being able to operate with less.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister, with some of his Back Benchers, look at the reality for British Rail, which is the adding together of its revenue returns and the PSO grants? If the hon. Gentleman adds those figures together he will realise the difficulty that British Rail has in raising sufficient money to meet its investment requirements. The EFL is not the requirement, it is the amount of money available for investment. That is the reality for British Rail, and it is about time the Government recognised it.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The problem is not the limitation on money, but finding viable investment projects that are worth while.

Heavy Lorries (London)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Greater London council in respect of its proposed ban on heavy lorries in the Greater London area at nights and weekends; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: I have made it clear to the GLC that I would want to consider very carefully all the evidence upon which a night time and weekend lorry ban was proposed. I would not support measures which inflicted damage on London's economy, and I will not hesitate to use my reserve powers if necessary.

Mr. Hunt: I welcome that reply, but is my right hon. Friend aware that this proposed ban would have a particularly devastating effect upon the major supermarket companies, increasing their costs and their prices, and threatening at least 8,000 jobs in depots in the Greater London area? Will he continue to do all that he can to curb the GLC's madness in this respect?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. I gather, for instance, that Marks and Spencer, which has a turnover of £600 million in London, providing 14,000 jobs, has already decided to locate its next food depot outside London if there is such a ban, and Sainsbury's has said that 1,296 jobs would be at risk if the ban were implemented. Those are the sorts of considerations which I expect the GLC to take into account before doing anything rash.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there has so far been no substantive proposal from the GLC? Does he not agree that there is still room for improvement in the delicate balance between environment, transport and employment?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with the vague statement with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question, but I also point out that we have had no view from the Opposition Front Bench on this matter. Do we take silence to mean that the Opposition agree that the GLC would be making a grievous mistake if it pursued this stupid plan?

Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it affects not just supermarkets, important though they are? All of us who rely on the Nine Elms fruit and vegetable market will start wondering how supplies will be brought into London at night time so that they can be bought during the day.

Mr. Ridley: In view of that point, with which I entirely agree, I have asked the GLC whether it intends at least to hold a public inquiry into this proposal.

Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House at least are prepared to consider the views of the Wood report on the question and to let these decisions rest with the elected representatives of Londoners on the other side of the river? Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we are not interested in making political points in favour of heavy lorries in order to guarantee an even further boost to the Conservative party's treasury from heavy goods vehicle operators?

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman is finding such difficulty in combining a posture of sitting on the fence with being in the pocket of the GLC.

Estuarial Crossings

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to estuarial crossings.

Mrs. Chalker: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 October 1983 to my hon. Friend the Member


for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The policy of successive Governments has been that estuarial crossings should be paid for by users.

Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware of local concern about the completion of the M25 and its impact on the Dartford tunnel? Is she further aware that there has been support for the provision of finance for new toll booths at the entrance to the tunnel? Can she give an assurance that the toll booths will be manned on all occasions so that delays or bottlenecks are not caused on the M25?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the pleasing nature of the £17 million investment in the approach roads and toll booths. I well understand local consternation. As an occasional user of the tunnel, I hear the comments of those on either side of it. However, the manning of the toll booths is a matter for the tunnel authority. I am sure that it would not have come forward with proposals to extend toll booths if it were not prepared thoroughly to man them, in view of the amount of traffic passing through.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister explain why, if we as a nation are prepared to pay for major trunk roads as part of the general expenditure of the Department, we are not prepared to do the same with estuarial crossings, be they tunnels or bridges, when they link major roads?

Mrs. Chalker: When the Department decides to invest in major trunk roads it takes into account any estuarial crossings that might be involved. But if a local authority builds an estuarial crossing on its own account with a debt of more than £140 million, which has now risen to £186 million, as in the case of the Humber bridge, it cannot expect the general taxpayer and the Government to take on the debts into which it freely entered.

Mr. Bottomley: Whatever the merits of the argument for estuarial crossings, does my hon. Friend accept that there are alternatives to the Dartford tunnel, which would involve much traffic coming into London only to go out again to join the M25? Does she accept that there will continue to be a great deal of pressure on the Dartford tunnel?

Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. There is a great benefit to motorists in carrying on around the M25 and through the Dartford tunnel. However, the introduction of tolls has enabled us to have substantial additions to our transport infrastructure, and they must be paid for. What happens in future is a matter for further decision.

Mr. Wareing: Has the Minister considered the proposal by the Merseyside county council for freeing Mersey tunnel users from charges to cross the river? Incidentally, that involves hon. Members coming from her constituency.
Because of the damage caused to Mersey tunnel finances by Government policy and the erection of the bridge across the Mersey from Runcorn to Widnes, will the hon. Lady now consider the claim being made for compensation by the Merseyside county council to cover that damage— [Hon. Members: "Too long."] Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider the position with the Mersey tunnel? Should not it now become part of the trunk road network?

Mrs. Chalker: Out of that lot, I must tell the House that the Runcorn-Widnes crossing existed long before the

second tunnel, which is why the Mersey authority now has a debt of £82 million. My right hon. Friend discussed the whole question of the Mersey tunnel tolls with representatives of the Merseyside county council when it visited us recently. We are awaiting proposals from it.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that if successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, had not approved the construction of many of the esturial crossings, and approved their financing by tolls, we would not have many of those crossings and the country and the motorist would be very much worse of?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Users of esturial crossings enjoy special benefits because of the saving in time and money that arise from using them rather than going round by a longer route. He is also right to say that without the investment made by individual authorities we would have a far less good road network.

Mr. loan Evans: When will the Government make a statement on the repair work on the Severn bridge, and when will there be a statement on the second crossing?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said to representatives from Wales last week, there will be a statement very shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister not interested in administrative costs? Is it not true that the administrative cost of collecting £100 in tolls from the Forth road bridge is 14 times that of collecting the same amount through income tax?

Mrs. Chalker: That is a question for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

A12 (Upgrading)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider upgrading the A12 to motorway standard.

Mrs Chalker: No, Sir. When schemes now under construction and programmed are completed, the A12 will be a high standard dual carriageway from London to north of Ipswich. We could not justify the cost in money and the effect on the environment of upgrading the road to motorway standard, which would include providing a separate facility for non-motorway traffic.

Mr. Yeo: In view of the tremendous increase in trade through east coast ports to the EC and elsewhere—reflecting the success of other Government policies—and the huge increase in the volume of traffic using the A12, will my hon. Friend undertake to make a fresh study of traffic levels to establish whether there would be any justification for upgrading that important road to motorway status?

Mrs. Chalker: We have taken the factors involved into account—including the growth of the east coast ports—in assessing the need for improvements to the A12. By the end of 1986 we shall have completed all the improvements except one small one, which is scheduled for the end of the decade. After 1986 there will be a continuous dual carriageway from the southern end of the A12 to the north of Ipswich, and that will help.

BR (Southern Region)

Mr. Snape: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that the timetable changes proposed on British Rail southern region will not adversely affect the interests of commuters.

Mr. David Mitchell: Timetable decisions are a matter for the Railways Board. It is seeking to improve the match between supply and demand.

Mr. Snape: At a recent meeting between the general manager of British Rail southern region my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and myself, the general manager conceded that the reductions — the third in eight years in the south of England—are caused by having to match his potential for providing services with the finance available. He also went on to say that the reductions will lead to an occupancy rate of 135 per cent. in many commuter trains running into London, that it is southern region's intention to increase fares in real terms by 1 per cent. each year and that southern region's commuters, under this Administration, will face paying Pullman prices for cattle truck conditions.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has failed to take into account the fact that substantial improvements have been made in some areas of the southern region as the board of British Rail has sought to match supply and demand. For example, there are the services to East Croydon, Reigate, Horsham, Portsmouth, Hayes, Tonbridge and Dartford, and there is the new non-stop service to Gatwick. The hon. Gentleman insists on concentrating on the reductions. If one is to balance supply and demand, there will be improvements and reductions in service at the same time.

Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend not agree that press reports during the Christmas recess about the adverse effects of changes in the timetables were grossly exaggerated? Furthermore, is it not unfair for Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to refer to remarks made by people with whom they have had discussions, when those people are not necessarily in a position to confirm what was said?

Mr. Mitchell: I confirm that there have been some scaremongering stories in circulation about the extend of cuts in services. In London and the south-east the cutback amounts to only 2 per cent. of loaded train miles. Across the country it amounts to only 1 per cent.

Mr. Cartwright: Will the Minister explain why so many of the planned cuts in southern region fall on southeast London, the forgotten corner of the city in public transport terms, which has no London Transport tube links to the centre and has congested road links? Why should people who depend so heavily upon British Rail find their services so seriously cut?

Mr. Mitchell: Because of the changes in the pattern of travel to work. There have been considerable changes in the movement of people coming to and from work, and the railways have sought to match their services to it.

Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that although I have criticised British Rail in the past for failing to consult local Members of Parliament when changing the timetables, I am now satisfied that it has gone out of its

way to consult local authorities and passenger organisations and is at least trying, as my hon. Friend said, to match demand with the new timetables, with at least a degree of success, save that it seems to think that life in London, including the Houses of Parliament closes at 11.30 pm?

Mr. Mitchell: Some of us might wish that it did. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the consultation processes that British Rail has been going through. After the knocking copy that we have had from the Opposition, I am sure that when I pass those remarks on to the chairman of British Rail he will be grateful.
Later—

Mr. Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my supplementary question to question No. 11, I repeated certain figures appertaining to the future of British Rail. I was attacked for doing so by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who implied that I had acted improperly in repeating a conversation between myself and the general manager of the southern region of British Rail. The figures that I gave to the House—on the third cut in eight years in the rail service—are accurate and can be found in the 1983 corporate plan of British Rail. The 135 per cent. load factor for southern region trains — [HON. MEMBERS: "This is not a point of order."] Yes, it is. The load factor figure and the 1 per cent. increase in rail fares can also be found in the plan.
If, Mr. Speaker, hon. Members on either side of the House—this certainly applies to Front Bench spokesmen —were not allowed to repeat conversations they have had with senior management of a nationlised industry to ascertain the facts for themselves, the reputation of the House would be diminished. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Member for Worthing will accept that I in no way acted improperly and that he will withdraw his allegation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is more of an explanation than a point of order.

Mr. Higgins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to say that he was quoting from a meeting that had taken place. It seemed to me that if those remarks were not verifiable they could be unfair. If the facts are as were stated, I accept that, but we shall wish to look at Hansard.

Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the recent report of the Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency.

Mr. Ridley: We are monitoring the position of the fund in view of payments being made following the Laker collapse, but I see no immediate need to increase it. There is still over £16 million left in the fund.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that that reply suggests appalling complacency in view of the stricutures in the report, which mentioned a £2 billion business, currently operating on exceedingly small margins and, therefore, with the probability of a collapse straining the fund and the ABTA/CAA bonds. Will the Minister adopt a more positive attitude to the searching report issued by Sir Kenneth Selby and the other members of the agency


and give a much better response, in view of the fact that we shall be debating this matter in an Adjournment debate later this week?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that even the Laker collapse cost the fund only £6 million. As I said, there is still £16 million left. It is right that I should give my view, because the hon. Gentleman has given his. Mine is that the fund is adequate for the present. The hon. Gentleman will be debating this complex and difficult matter with my hon. Friend. It will be possible to go into it much more deeply on Friday and there will be more to be said then. I want to reassure the public that, for the present, the fund is adequate.

Mr. McCrindle: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be unwise to be alarmist about this matter, but would he nevertheless concede that over the past five years the turnover of package tours has increased by about 300 per cent. while the value of the fund to which this question refers has increased by no more than 50 per cent.? If he is disinclined to agree to any additional levy, will he at least recommend that, although there is no immediate likelihood of a number of package tour companies going out of business, it would not be a bad thing for prospective holiday makers to effect the appropriate private insurance?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I particularly agree that it would be altogether better if individuals insured themselves rather than have the matter organised centrally. As the report has been made by Sir Kenneth Selby, to whom I pay all due tribute, I have carefully studied the problem. I shall be asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reply in some detail to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about how we see the way forward.

London Transport Executive

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the London Transport Executive.

Mr. Ridley: I saw Dr. Bright last Monday, when I looked at the latest London Transport developments on bus control and underground operation. I am always happy to meet him to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Dobson: When the Secretary of State met the chairman of London Transport, did he tell him that he intended to fund the new Regional Transport Authority at the much reduced levels of expenditure set out in December's transport support grant settlement? Did the right hon. Gentleman go on to explain that, in that case, it would probably be necessary to close more than 30 London Transport stations and to withdraw more than 30 London Transport bus routes?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman appears to have seen a misleading report in The Standard by something called the "Capital Group" in which it was wrongly stated that £100 million was all that would be available next year for London Transport. However, I can happily confirm that there will be £125 million of revenue support and £175 million of capital support, making £300 million in all. That is three times the amount suggested. As a result, no stations are on a list to be closed and no bus routes are likely to be withdrawn. I hope the hon. Gentleman now has it clearly in mind that that report was totally false and, in my opinion, mischievous.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Janner: asked the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Last Friday we discussed the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

Mr. Janner: May I congratulate the Attorney-General on his prophetic powers and ask whether he discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the invoking of the criminal law against employees of GCHQ who may refuse to give up their union rights and accept the £1,000 bribe? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered what the Government will do about prosecutions that might arise, for example, if those employees refuse to accept injunctions or to comply with orders to leave the premises?

The Attorney-General: That was not discussed. The matter will have to be considered if it arises.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the increasing unhappiness about his refusal to take cases to court under the Obscene Publications Act when those cases seem open and shut to ordinary people? At the next opportunity, will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the DPP our unhappiness about the fact that it would seem that the inadequacy of the Act is being disguised by his inability or unwillingness to act?

The Attorney-General: That question is not quite fair to the DPP. He has initiated several prosecutions of films, magazines, and so on, and also of a number of video cassettes. Both he and I keep that matter under constant review.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. John Morris: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to consolidate the law regarding directions given to nationalised industries.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Mr. Morris: Is the Attorney-General aware that there is anxiety in the nationalised industries about the difference between a direction given under statute and a ministerial instruction? Will he consider with the Minister, in accordance with page 434 of "Erskine May", whether it is expedient for him to make known to the House any opinion that he may have given regarding the direction to dispose of Wytch farm, which was laid before Parliament on 12 October 1981, and the Minister's instruction on 30 March 1983 to carry forward negotiations with the Dorset group of companies? In particular, if the powers of direction under section 7 of the Gas Act are limited merely to a power to dispose—and not as to whom or as to what offer should be accepted — what will be the constitutional and fiduciary position of the British Gas Corporation if it misguidedly disposes of that asset at a price that it regards as below value?

The Attorney-General: I had no notice of that question, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Minister needs my advice after I have considered the matter, he will receive it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Attorney-General considered the point that the Regional Transport Bill contains a proposal to remove the right of individuals to sue London Transport for any breach of duty? If not, will he undertake to do so and to bear in mind its effect on the general structure of administrative law, in that the Bill seeks to remove a fundamental right of citizens to be able to enforce the duties of a public authority.

The Attorney-General: That cannot be a matter for me. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Legal Aid

Mr. Chope: asked the Attorney-General why the contributions made by defendants towards the cost of their own criminal legal aid have fallen over recent years; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The decision whether or not to make a contribution order in each case lies within the court's discretion. It is, therefore, not possible to be certain about what factors have influenced courts' individual decisions. In order to achieve greater consistency and efficiency the Lord Chancellor has introduced new arrangements, which will become effective from 1 March 1984.

Mr. Chope: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he think that the new regulations will go some way to increase substantially —to about 10 per cent. for instance—the contributions made by people on legal aid, which remains at a paltry figure of less than 1·5 per cent?

The Solicitor-General: There is a prospect of that. When a order is made for contributions from income, payments will be required forthwith instead of at the end of the case as at present, when enforcement is much more difficult. We expect that contribution revenue may well be doubled by the measure.

Ms. Harman: Is not the real reason why the courts are ordering a smaller amount to be paid by convicted defendants towards their costs that an increasing number of people appearing before the courts are unemployed? Do not the Government's own figures show that the new scheme will recoup only about £3 million, without taking into account administrative costs? That is only a small sum for the Government to recoup. How can the Government justify it when weighed against the injustice that it will inevitably cause because some defendants do not take up the offer of legal aid in criminal cases as they fear that they will not be able to keep up with the contributions?

The Solicitor-General: The most that can be said is that the courts have to order such contribution as appears reasonable, having regard to the defendant's resources and commitments. A wide variety of circumstances can lead the courts to make or refuse an order. Because there is some evidence that this jurisdiction has not been exercised entirely consistently, the Lord Chancellor is introducing the regulations to which I have referred.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the largest problem about criminal legal aid is that often the wealthiest defendants—the fraudsters and the drug conspirators — have their costs paid to an enormous degree? Does he agree that that is an abuse of the use of taxpayers' money? Is my hon. and learned

Friend also aware that during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill 1982, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) tabled an amendment which gave the registrar power to require the details of a defendant's means and to appoint an expert to examine those details if the need should arise? What use has been made in the last 18 months of that provision, and to what effect?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. There are well-founded suspicions that people who could well afford to pay for their defence have been getting away with it at the expense of the taxpayer. The provision introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) is embodied in the regulations that take effect on 1 March. That will enable the courts, as distinct from the DHSS, to make the type of inquiries to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. I hope and believe that it will lead to a considerable improvement.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Solicitor-General assist the House by confirming or denying whether this miserable sum will be raised by taking into consideration child benefit and the wages of innocent wives?

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should make it clear whether he wishes to resile from the criterion that the sum should be "reasonable" having regard to resources when an order for legal aid is made. If only a small sum can be raised—I agree it is and will remain a small proportion of the total cost of the scheme—I should not wish us to depart from the "reasonable" criterion. The regulations will provide that the means of a spouse shall be taken into consideration. That is a long-standing practice and I think that it is proper.

Law Society

Mr. Blair: asked the Attorney-General what information the Lord Chancellor has as to the further powers to be sought by the Law Society concerning the investigation of complaints against its members.

The Attorney-General: The society's proposals include powers to enable action to be taken on bad professional work and, where appropriate, to require a solicitor to remit costs or to rectify an error at his own expense.

Mr. Blair: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept than, even with those additional powers, the present system of handling complaints against Law Society members is open to serious public criticism? Does he further accept that that public criticism has not been allayed by the lay observer's report into the Glanville Davies affair, which largely exonerated that system of complaints? Will he accept that the only way of allaying that criticism is to have an independent system for investigating complaints against Law Society members, or at least a system with a substantial lay element, as was advised by the Royal Commission on legal services in 1979?

The Attorney-General: It would be wrong to say that the lay observer did not make any criticism of the Glanville Davies case. He referred to a continued improvement in the Law Society's overall standards in dealing with


complaints and said that he had no reason to doubt the fairness or objectivity with which the society and its staff sought to approach the investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

India

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds were made available for the Republic of India in the last three years for which figures are available; and how much he intends to make available for the corning fiscal year.

Mr. Raison: For the financial year 1980–81, gross aid to India totalled £141 million; for 1981–82, £102 million; and for 1982–83, £110·5 million. Figures for the current financial year are not yet available. We shall shortly be discussing with the Indian authorities how we might spend a similar amount in 1984–85.

Mr. Janner: Does not the Minister not deplore the decrease in aid to India since his Government came to office? Does he accept that what we give to that great democracy not only does a little to alleviate the mighty poverty and suffering there, but enables India to buy goods from us and therefore contributes to the vast imbalance of trade, under which India buys far more from us than we do from India?

Mr. Raison: I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures about our aid to India. However, I fully agree that the aid programme to India is of great value both to India and to ourselves.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of the family planning element in our aid programme to India should not be underestimated? Does he also agree that, as part of the aid programme, consideration of the stress on technologically complicated and expensive helicopters is perhaps less appropriate than would be the consideration of stress on a more technologically appropriate aircraft, such as the Optica made by Edgley in Salisbury?

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend raised two points which do not seem to be closely related. I have seen effective work in family planning in the state of Orissa, which we are supporting. As my hon. Friend knows, a project concerning helicopters is under active consideration at present. I have not yet come to a decision on the matter, but hope to announce one soon.

Mr. Barnett: Does the Minister agree that a chief sufferer from the American failure to replenish the IDA properly will be India? Does he also agree that, whatever the outcome of the current Lomé 3 negotiations, India will continue to be discriminated against, unlike the ACP countries, which stand to benefit to a greater degree? In the light of that, will the Minister examine carefully his aid programme to India and make up for the discrimination by Lomé and the loss that India will undoubtedly sustain as a consequence of the failure of the Americans to replenish the IDA?

Mr. Raison: I accept that a reduction in the size of the next IDA replenishment will have an impact on India. Although India is not part of the ACP system, the Community has a substantial aid programme in India, and that is all to the good.

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals there are for assistance to India.

Mr. Raison: A number of new proposals for aid projects have been either agreed or are under discussion. They include assistance to forestry, housing, and the power and oil sectors.

Mr. Budgen: Has there been an increase since Christmas in the number of letters coming from people in this country asking for aid to India?

Mr. Raison: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question off the cuff, but I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration, in terms of new projects, to the 80 per cent. of agrarian development that relies on agricultural co-operative societies? Does he agree that the development of co-operatives should be an important part of the programme? How many members of staff at the high commission in Delhi are considering putting our money to the best advantage?

Mr. Raison: Agricultural development is of great importance in our worldwide aid programme. However, the effectiveness of co-operatives in agriculture is a matter that is very much argued. We do not have a large aid staff in Delhi, but it is being increased and it is backed by strong help from my Department.

International Development Association

Mr. Stuart Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he now proposes to take in concert with other countries to make up the shortfall in the seventh replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association.

Mr. Mark Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the current status of the negotiations for the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association.

Mr. Raison: The Government have from an early stage made it clear that we favour a larger replenishment of IDA's resources for the next three years than the $9 billion agreed last month in Washington. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) on 27 January, we have decided that we are prepared to make a contribution to supplementary funding on the basis of the usual equitable burden-sharing among donors. The World Bank has welcomed our initiative.

Mr. Holland: I am glad to know that the Government are seeking to prevent a United States boycott of IDA's replenishment. However, is the Minister aware that although the Government appear to be taking a cautious step forward, they are in fact taking a massive stride back, since the planned United Kingdom contribution to IDA at 6·5 per cent. is down by more than one-third from the 10 per cent. that we contributed to the sixth replenishment? Will he assure the House that any IDA replenishment will not be at the cost of the Southern African development co-ordination countries, as is suggested by reports of his recent refusal in Lusaka to increase aid to those countries?

Mr. Raison: Although there will be a reduction in our total contribution as between IDA 6 and IDA 7, the


reductions will reflect a number of factors, including the total size of the replenishment and changes in the dollar-sterling relationship. However, if there is a supplementary fund, that will reduce the drop substantially. There is no truth in the suggestion that our attitude towards the SADC conference, and the amount of money I pledged there, is affected by the position of IDA.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that his remarks will be welcomed in Third world and Commonwealth countries, since this is the second time that Britain has stepped in to help the IDA replenishment, which is so important to the many countries that are trying to relieve themselves of the burden of overseas debt?

Mr. Raison: I thank my hon. Friend and agree entirely with what he said. It is notable that at the SADC conference, to which the hon. Member for Lambeth, Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth paid warm tribute to Britain over its decision on supplementary funding for IDA.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this case America's attitude towards IDA is nothing short of appalling? Bearing in mind our excellent record on aid, can we not stress the point to America that no country with such wealth can be called civilised if it is willing to let 40,000 people a day die of starvation, when the great Western world has the means, if it has the will, at its disposal to prevent this?

Mr. Raison: We have made clear to the Americans on several occasions our desire that they should contribute more to the next replenishment of IDA than they plan to do at present. No doubt we shall continue to make that point. However, I must point out that the American bilateral aid programme is increasing at present.

Aid Programme

Mr. Soames: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he has for strengthening co-operation between British industry and the aid programme.

Mr. Raison: I consider it important to improve liaison with the private sector and have taken a number of practical steps to bring it about. I have appointed a commercial liaison officer to act as a first point of call for inquirers and have arranged informal discussions with business men for the interchange of views and ideas.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance of this sector, British industry will be grateful for the steps taken by my right hon. Friend further to familiarise himself with the situation? Will he assure the House that he will take renewed steps in this direction, since many of my constituents have never heard of the aid programme?

Mr. Raison: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for what we are doing. I assure him that there is no doubt about our determination to involve British industry more fully in the work of our aid programme. I am sorry that many of my hon. Friend's constituents have not heard of our work. If he wishes to ask me, I should be glad to visit his constituency and inform them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: How many letters has the Minister's Department received from British industrialists since the Prime Minister quoted from St. Francis of Assisi?

Mr. Raison: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of his reply, support the West Indian committee's private enterprise in mounting a trade mission to Grenada, which leaves Britain in the middle of this month? Does he accept that the Grenadian economy will thrive only if the private sector is put in a position to make a major contribution to the recovery of that island?

Mr. Raison: I have no doubt that the private sector can help significantly in the recovery of Grenada, as in aid programmes generally. I should be happy to discuss with him the specific point made by my hon. Friend.

Lebanon (United Kingdom Force)

Mr. Tony Marlow: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider the immediate withdrawal of UK forces from Lebanon.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Fighting broke out on 2 February in Beirut between the Lebanese armed forces and the Shia Militia Amal. The fighting escalated on 3 and 4 February and continues today. Heavy Lebanese casualties have been reported.
The Lebanese Government resigned on 5 February but continues as a caretaker Administration. President Gemayel has begun consultations on the formation of a new Government and has issued an appeal to all parties in Lebanon to resume reconciliation talks.
The British contingent of the multinational force has not been the target of any deliberate attacks. Stray rounds have landed in or near the contingent's base. The contingent has suffered one minor casualty.
We are today consulting our partners in the multinational force and will keep the situation under close review. We wish to see an early end to the violence and bloodshed, an effective ceasefire, and more vigorous efforts by the Government of Lebanon and all the parties to settle their differences by negotiation. Against the background I have described, we must judge with other partners whether the MNF can still help in this process. We do not intend to withdraw our contingent precipitately.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in Riyadh on 11 January this year that the purposes of the multinational force was to help to extend the authority of the legitimate Government in the Lebanon. As there is now no such Government, as as it is most unlikely that there can be any such Government until such time as the May accord with Israel has been dumped, will my hon. Friend signify to our allies in the most effective way possible that there is no present purpose in our presence there?

Mr. Luce: On the last point there has been a great deal of discussion within and among the parties about the accord of 17 May. As my hon. Friend knows, the principal purpose of the accord was to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, which is one of the major and important factors which we support if there is to be success in reconciliation in the Lebanon, let alone other foreign forces.
If alternatives that are just as good or better are put forward as a compromise plan which allows for the Lebanon to be independent and sovereign, but at the same time caters for the security of Israel on the northern borders, we do not think it right for us or any other party to stand in the way.

Mr. Denis Healey: Is not the time long past for diplomatic gobbledegook on the Lebanon? According to the 1 o'clock news, there is now a complete collapse of law and order and the Lebanese army has disintegrated into its various Moslem and Christian components. Will the Minister now ask President Reagan to fulfil his mid-December undertaking to withdraw American forces from the Lebanon in the event of a

collapse of law and order in Beirut? Will the Minister encourage the President in that by immediately withdrawing British forces? Does he agree that when even the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia describes the American presence in Beirut as "shameful", as he did on Friday, the continued presence of British and American forces can only do immense damage to British and Western interests in the middle east as well as representing a totally unjustified risk to the lives of British soldiers who now have no conceivable role to play there?

Mr. Luce: Before answering the right hon. Gentleman's main question, it is important to reinforce what we have always said. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees, we have nothing but admiration for the work of those 100 men in the past few months in their two main tasks—to guard the ceasefire commission at the request of all parties and to patrol the main streets of Beirut.
We in no way underestimate the gravity of the events of the past few days. In conjunction with our partners in the multinational force, we are very carefully assessing and weighing the implications of what is happening in the Lebanon. The judgment that we have to make—it is a very difficult balance to strike — is whether, if the multinational force remains there, there is still a prospect of reconciliation among the parties and of the Lebanon being able to proceed towards independence, full sovereignty and stability, which is what we all want. That is one of the main criteria that we have to take into account. The safety of the men involved is, of course, a very important factor at all times.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very important half Supply day for the Ulster Unionists today. As there are still two more statements and two applications for debates under Standing Order No. 10, we should not spend too long on the present important matter.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister confirm yet again that the British troops are in the Lebanon for the purpose of supporting President Gemayel in the almost impossible task of restoring national unity and reconciliation, and for no other purpose? Does the Minister agree that the United States is making the task even more difficult by refusing to countenance changes in the peace treaty arrangements between Israel and the Lebanon which President Gemayel himself is seeking?

Mr. Luce: I must make it absolutely plain to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not there to take sides with one faction against another. That is not our objective. If we adopted that stance it would not be possible even to start to fulfil our objective. The objective is singularly important. It is to see what we can do in the greater Beirut area to assist the process of reconciliation and thus, indirectly, the prospect of greater stability in the Lebanon. It is against that background that we have to make a very careful assessment of whether we are making a constructive contribution.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend said that we were there to assist the process of reconciliation. What process is being served, in which direction is that process going, and for what possible purpose are our troops now being exposed to danger?

Mr. Luce: I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend, if he were in a position of responsibility, would agree that it would not be right to take a rapid and panic decision in the light of the serious events—there is no doubt that the events of the past few days are very serious—and then, without consultation with the MNF or anything else, say that we should immediately withdraw because those events had taken place. We must judge calmly and rationally whether we continue to think that we can make a constructive contribution.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister make it clear that we are not awaiting the permission of the United States to remove our soldiers from the dangerous and absurd position of purporting to sustain the authority of the Lebanese Government?

Mr. Luce: It is for us to take our own decision; we have our own responsibilities. However, it is right and important that the MNF partners should seek to act collectively if they possibly can, and that is our objective, because in that way we can bring most influence to bear.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Has my hon. Friend received any indication from President Assad about whether he has plans to withdraw the Syrian forces from the Lebanon?

Mr. Luce: We have repeatedly said that it is an essential precondition of any progress in the Lebanon that all foreign forces should withdraw. That presupposes, obviously, the Israelis and the Syrians. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I, when I paid a visit to Syria, made that point forcefully to the Syrians. There is as yet no indication that they are prepared to withdraw. We think that there is no prospect of peaceful resolution in that country unless all foreign forces withdraw.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in these tragic circumstances the first requirement is that the Americans should get the hell out of it because they have exacerbated the situation by taking sides—the hon. Gentleman made the point that we should not be doing that—in the factional fighting in Lebanon?

Mr. Luce: As I said, we are today in close touch with all our MNF partners. We are consulting closely about the present situation in the Lebanon, which is evolving rapidly.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent months we have argued that the MNF should stay in the Lebanon, for to withdraw it might lead to the fall of the Lebanese Government? Now that the Lebanese Government have fallen, is my hon. Friend arguing that the continuing presence of the MNF might lead to the emergence of a new Lebanese Government?

Mr. Luce: I do not recall that at any time we have linked our withdrawal or presence to a specific Government in the Lebanon. That has never, in my recollection, been the case, but clearly a serious factor which we must consider—I am sure that the House will be weighing this up carefully as one of the factors which we must consider—is what would be the effect of a precipitate withdrawal of the MNF at present. Would it, or would it not, help the situation in the Lebanon?

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will be aware that fewer than 200 yards now separate the American forces in Beirut from the National Salvation Front militia. Does he accept that the only way in which there will not be an outbreak of direct fighting between those forces is if the Americans put pressure on President Gemayel to accept the point that the National Salvation Front has been making namely that there must be a Government who involve all parties and are not dominated by one single party, if peace is to be restored in the Lebanon?

Mr. Luce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there will be no prospect of peace for the strife-torn country of the Lebanon unless there is reconciliation between the communities within the Lebanon, let alone the role of foreign forces, and it is absolutely essential and urgent that the parties should get together, reconcile their differences and allow conditions to be created for the withdrawal of all foreign forces.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the locus standi of the British forces in the Lebanon? If the Lebanese Parliament was time-expired before it approved Gemayel's presidency and Gemayel has not been elected by any electorate there, and as his writ clearly does not run in the country so that he is not de facto, and he appears not to be de jure either, by whose authority are British armed forces present in that country?

Mr. Luce: There is a caretaker Government, the members of which include the Moslems who resigned. It is being assessed whether a fresh Administration can be formed. We can work only on the facts as they are. There is a constitution, there have been elections and there was a Parliament which was originally elected, and through that system the president is elected. If we are to play a role in the Lebanon, there does not seem to be any other basis on which we can operate and consider the events.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Minister not evaded the legitimate question put by the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, by saying that he should go away and reflect? In what way can 100 men confined to barracks help any method of reconciliation?

Mr. Luce: I do not want to leave the House with the impression that the British Government are not reflecting. We are reflecting and considering these matters extremely seriously. As I have said, we are today in touch with the MNF partners. We attach the highest priority to those consultations. We regard the events of the past few days as extremely grave and against that background we have to make a judgment on whether we can play a constructive role. In our view it is not right and not sensible to panic in the light of the events of the past weekend and pull out in a precipitate manner without rational assessment.

Mr. David Crouch: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be tempted into feeling that there is a call this afternoon for retreat from our position in the Lebanon. We have a place in the Lebanon—a symbolic position to the Lebanese people and to the Government. The fact that we do not take sides is our symbol of impartiality. I hope that my hon. Friend will not heed the strident calls for retreat at this time.

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend's remarks are important and significant and have been borne out on the tours which I and my right hon. and learned Friend have undertaken in the middle east. Great credit has been paid to our soldiers who have carried out Britain's role over the past year in the Lebanon. That is because they are trusted by all the parties. There is a view held among many countries in the middle east that Britain has had a constructive role to play. Many countries are pleased that we have done it.

Mr. Healey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that when he talks about his 15 months of reflection it sounds rather like higher narcissism. Nothing has emerged from this reflection whatever except the genial features of the Foreign Secretary and his fellow Ministers. Of course it is the case that if the multinational force is to play a role it must act collectively, but is not the failure of the force due to the fact that the United States Administration have acted unilaterally in the military sense by intervening massively and continually on one side in the internal conflict, and in the diplomatic sense by refusing to use its presence to persuade President Gemayel to revise his regime to give a fairer share of power to the great Moslem majority in the Lebanon, and by refusing to use any influence to persuade President Gemayel to revise the Israeli-Lebanese accord, which is now rejected by every section of non-Maronite opinion in the Lebanon? In that situation, has the time not come when we should tell the Americans that we propose to do what we and our European colleagues think is best in our and Western interests?

Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must take the decision ourselves and do whatever we think is best in terms of British interests. We could have had an easy option at any time during the past several months since we first had a force in the Lebanon, which was a year ago. We could have decided when we were asked to make a contribution merely to turn our backs and not to do so. There have been many arguments in favour of doing just that. However, it was suggested to us that Britain could play a constructive role in that part of the world and we decided to respond. That was the basis of our decision. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we are taking extremely seriously the nature of the developments in the Lebanon and consulting closely with our MNF partners.

Mr. Mhatre

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short statement.
I deeply regret to have to tell the House that Mr. R. H. Mhatre, an assistant commissioner in the Birmingham office of the Indian high commission, was found dead at about 10 pm yesterday near Hinckley in Leicestershire. It is clear from the circumstances and the nature of his injuries that he was murdered. Mr. Mhatre had been kidnapped close to his home in Birmingham at about 6 pm on Friday 3 February.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy to Mr. Mhatre's family. The Prime Minister has sent a message of sympathy to Mrs. Gandhi, and I have sent a similar message to the high commissioner.
An organisation calling itself the Kashmir Liberation Army claimed to have kidnapped an Indian diplomat. It made demands for the release of prisoners in India and for the payment of money. It threatened to kill the diplomat if its demands were not met.
The chief constable of the West Midlands police has been in charge of the case from the beginning. I have been in close touch with him throughout and have given every assistance I can. The police have given the case the highest priority and are making every effort to bring those responsible to justice. I shall, of course, give the police any further assistance that they require in the investigation. Arrangements have been made to enhance the protection given to Indian diplomatic staff.
The seriousness with which this matter is being pursued and the fact that I have reported to the House at the earliest opportunity underlines the Government's determination to stand firm against terrorists and their violence. There can be no place whatsoever for either in this country.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We in the Opposition express our profound sympathy to Mr. Mhatre's family. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has sent a message of sympathy to Mrs. Gandhi. The Kashmiris in Britain have the reputation of being some of the most law-abiding people in our community and I am sure that they, too, condemn this brutal murder.
Did the Government or the police have any advance warning of the possibility of terrorist action by this group? If so, was information about such dangers communicated to the West Midlands police? Will the Government review carefully the arrangements for protecting diplomatic staff? While it is impossible to prevent all such grievous occurrences, it is important that special efforts are made to safeguard those particularly at risk. We in the Opposition utterly condemn such terrorist outrages. They are totally unacceptable in Britain. Every effort must be made to ensure that those involved are brought to justice.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words of sympathy and condemnation.
The Government had no advance warning of any such threats. Indeed, we are not aware of any threats to Indian diplomats in the past. Of course there will be a review of the arrangements for the security of diplomats in the light of what has occurred, but I remind the House that in the


Indian high commission alone there are 72 people with full diplomatic status. The police have to make their professional assessment for each collection of diplomats as to what measures can and should be taken. As I have already said, their assessment has led to enhanced protection for Indian diplomats in the light of this event.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the chairman of the Indo-British parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who at the moment is on duty in a Select Committee, has already written on behalf of many right hon. and hon. Members in the group to express the sympathy and sorrow that we feel at this dreadful and tragic event? Will my right hon. and learned Friend leave no stone unturned to bring to justice the perpetrators of this terrible crime? Does he think that the West Midlands police have sufficient resources? He spoke of offering further assistance. Has he considered offering support from the Metropolitan police?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for informing me of that further message of sympathy. I spoke to the chief constable of the West Midlands only yesterday, and contact has been maintained throughout. I am satisfied that he has the resources that are necessary. I remain ready to give any further assistance, should it be required.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary extend the sympathies of my right hon. and hon. Friends about this outrage and accept our condemnation of this appalling terrorist act? In the review of the protection of the diplomatic corps which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has undertaken to conduct, will he bear in mind the fact that primary responsibility for such protection in Britain has fallen upon the Metropolitan police, who are answerable to him, and that special advice might be necessary to police forces which are answerable to local police authorities?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy. I should not want the House to think that any formal review has been instituted as a result of this event. Circumstances vary a great deal from embassy to embassy. However, the protection that is required for diplomats at each embassy must be kept under continuous review. It is obvious that the circumstances of what so tragically occurred yesterday will have to be taken into account.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us who represent the city of Birmingham think that it is appropriate that this appalling act should be made the subject of a special statement today? Mr. Mhatre was well known to many of us in the city of Birmingham for his humanity and good will. What he brought to Indo-British relations in Birmingham and the rest of the West Midlands will be hard to replace. It is a small but sad relief that his death was caused by the extremism of an organisation from the Indian subcontinent and not from at home, where Mr. Mhatre contributed a great deal to the relationship between the Indian and British communities. He will be difficult to replace.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friend's personal and local observations about Mr. Mhatre will be

appreciated by his family and by the Indian Government. I am glad that the House has had the opportunity to hear them.

Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Home Secretary aware that everyone in the city of Birmingham wishes to be associated with the expressions of sympathy for the family of Mr. Mhatre and that this appalling murder is condemned by everyone, including all those who want to see a free, independent and democratic Kashmir which is established by peaceful means?

Mr. Brittan: I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman said and the stress that he put on peaceful means. I should like to make it clear that throughout this incident the Government have been in close touch with the Indian high commission and the Indian Government. They have made it clear throughout that they share our determination not to give in to terrorist demands.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend re-emphasise our sorrow at the tragic death of Mr. Mhatre? In doing so, however, in view of the re-emergence of the so-called Kashmir Front, following the call in the autumn of last year for Eelam in Sri Lanka, will he re-emphasise the need for the Government to make it clear to all Governments in the Indian sub-continent that we shall not countenance any terrorism or sub-terrorism in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brittan: Our opposition to terrorism, even when it emanates from causes which are quite unrelated to domestic affairs, is shown by the inclusion of clause 12 in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which will give the police power to arrest and detain without warrant persons whom they reasonably suspect of involvement in acts of terrorism connected with international affairs, not just those connected with Northern Irish affairs. I hope that, even now, in the light of this incident, those who have opposed the inclusion of clause 12 will think again.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I underline the fact that the sense of shock and outrage is shared by everyone in the city of Birmingham, not just the ethnic communities? Will the Home Secretary now pay special attention to the protection offered to diplomats who are stationed outside the capital and ensure that everything possible is done to enable them to go about their business in security?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first remarks. The question of the proper level of protection for diplomats outside London is just as important as for those inside London, and I am glad to have the opportunity to reaffirm that.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: May I, as a fellow member of the all-party Indo-British group, associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)? May I, through the Home Secretary, say that, of all the embassies and high commissions in London, it is with the Indian high


commission that the Opposition Back Benches have perhaps the closest attachment and the closest association; and therefore not only the Government and the leadership of the Front Bench, but the whole House, extend sympathy to the family?

Mr. Brittan: I know that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be much appreciated.

Housing Benefit

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the housing benefit scheme.
I announced on 17 November last year that the Government proposed to make some changes to the housing benefit scheme with a view to containing the rapidly escalating cost of the benefit. As is required by the 1980 Social Security Act, I submitted drafts of the regulations giving effect to those changes to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am today publishing the committee's report, together with the Government's response to it. I am also laying before the House amended regulations that take account not only of the views expressed by the committee and local authorities, but also of the debate in this House last month.
Before moving on to describe the Government's new proposals, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Arthur Armitage, chairman of the committee since its inception, whose death very sadly occurred last week.
In its report, the Social Security Advisory Committee was particularly concerned about the effect of the proposals on lower income beneficiaries, and the possible cumulative impact of the proposals on a minority of families. It suggested a number of amendments to the proposals designed to alleviate these effects. At the same time, it conceded that there were some aspects of the housing benefit scheme that extend financial help further up the income ladder than anywhere else in the social security system, and that, if cuts in social security spending are essential, it might be reasonable to take resources from there rather than from the means-tested safety net.
I have considered very carefully the committee's report and all the representations that have been made. Clearly it is essential for the Government to maintain firm control of public expenditure, and in the last 10 years cash expenditure on the former rent and rate rebates scheme has increased tenfold, an increase of 140 per cent. in real terms. It is also reasonable to propose that, where a non-dependant is living in the house of someone claiming housing benefit, that non-dependant should be expected to make a contribution to housing costs, and that the housing benefit paid to a claimant should be reduced accordingly.
Nevertheless, in view of the representations made, the Government have decided to modify the proposed changes with three principal objectives: to lessen the scale of any reductions in benefit to be faced by individual families; to minimise the impact of the changes on those on lower incomes, including pensioners, and to simplify the changes which will have to be made. The revised proposals take full account of the administrative problems involved in the changes.
The Government now propose to make only two changes to the housing benefit scheme in April. First, the tapers for assistance with rents will increase from 21 per cent. to 26 per cent., instead of 31 per cent., as originally proposed, and for rates from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. This will have the effect of halving the losses resulting from taper changes in assistance with rent. Secondly, the deductions made for non-dependants aged 18 or over will


be increased, as originally proposed, but the qualifying period for modification of those deductions will be reduced from 90 days to 56 days, as proposed by the advisory committee. In addition, the proposed changes on the supplementary benefit non-householders housing contribution will go ahead. Other changes that were to have been made in housing benefit in April have been either postponed or dropped. This will allow time for families and for local authorities to adjust to those of the changes which still have to be made.
The remainder of the proposals therefore provide that there now will be no change in the minimum payments for the poorest claimants—those with income levels below their needs allowance. Increases in the minimum payment levels for other claimants will not take effect until November 1984, and the minimum payment for rent assistance will be set at 50p instead of £1 as originally proposed. The requirement for 16 to 17-year-olds not on supplementary benefit or youth training schemes to make a contribution to housing costs will not come into effect until November 1984, and will not apply to those in receipt of non-contributory invalidity pension. The modification to the criteria for eligibility for high rent schemes will also be postponed to November 1984, when current authorisations expire. The rent tapers will be increased in November, but only from 26 per cent. to 29 per cent., not 31 per cent., as originally proposed.
The restructuring of the proposals that I have outlined will reduce significantly the savings that can be made, particularly in 1984–85. I have therefore had to postpone the real increase in the housing benefit children's needs allowance that I had announced would be introduced from April. The allowance was to have been increased from £11·90 to £12·90. That cannot now be achieved in April. But I am glad to say that it will still be possible to implement an increase of 50p in November 1984, and a further increase of £1 will be made in April 1985. The children's needs allowance will then have been increased by £1·50 in real terms, compared with the increase of £1 originally proposed.
Taken together, these modifications will help about 1,300,000 households, and will mean that about 300,000 families will not now lose entitlement to benefit in April. Moreover, I propose to discuss with the local authorities how a limit on individual losses from the taper and high rent scheme changes can be brought into effect in November. All these changes will be accommodated within the Government's existing expenditure plans. But the enormous growth of housing benefit expenditure and the income levels at which it is paid require further consideration. Equally, the continuing difficulties which some local authorities are still experiencing in handling claims and payments is causing anxiety for individual families.
The Government feel, therefore, that a review of the scheme and its operation is required. Its main objectives will be to examine the structure and scope of the scheme to ensure it is as simple as possible, and that help is concentrated on those most in need, and to improve its administration by local authorities.
I shall be appointing a small review team under independent chairmanship to report to me so that I may consider urgently what action needs to be taken. I shall also ask the review team to consider the issues which the advisory committee identified as requiring further consideration.
The revised proposals I have described today will soon be debated. Nevertheless, I thought it right that, prior to that debate, I should describe in a statement to the House the changes that are being proposed. I believe that they represent a reasonable balance between the protection of individual benefit recipients and the need to bring under control expenditure on housing benefit which is now running at almost £4 billion a year.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that these minor ameliorations to yet another Government attack on the poor will still leave pensioners and some of the lowest income families in our society about £150 million worse off this April, and about £190 million worse off next November? Will he confirm that the cutbacks are still as large as that, even after the changes that he has brought to the House today? Will the Minister say what justification there is, even after these changes, for cutting the standard of living of pensioners by up to £2·50 a week, and for poor families by more than £3 a week, when in successive Budgets the Government have given huge tax reliefs to the rich who are on more than £30,000 a year, which, according to a recent parliamentary answer I received, now leaves them no less than a staggering £62 a week better off than in 1979? Will he confirm that low-paid workers, even after the changes that he has mentioned today, will still be in a deeper poverty trap than before, and will still be liable to a marginal tax rate of more than 70 per cent., when even the richest businessman in the country never pays tax above 60 per cent?
Since the Government are merely postponing, instead of dropping, some of the most offensive aspects of this scheme—for example, the non-dependant reductions of £3·10 a week—will he acknowledge that, when this is reinstituted in November, it will in effect be a tax on school leavers finding jobs, it will force up the benefit loss for many families to more than £6 a week and, contrary to the way the Prime Minister and many other Ministers have repeatedly misled the country, it will mean major cuts for thousands of families on supplementary benefit?
Is the Secretary of State also aware that there is abundant evidence throughout the country—10 months after the introduction of this half-baked folly — of unprecedented muddle, confusion and bungling? Is he further aware that thousands of beneficiaries have been deprived of fuel direct payments because of a switch to the scheme; that the scheme is too complex to deal with the comings and goings of non-dependants such as students; that even where substantial administration errors have been admitted, councils are still loth to waive charges wrongly made, and there has been no guidance from the Secretary of State about that; and that thousands are losing benefit to which they are entitled because local authorities —for example, Sunderland—have not the staff or the time to send out the necessary rebate forms?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Liverpool, to take one wholly characteristic example, people are still waiting for benefit after an eight-month delay—even in February 1984, 10 months after the scheme began? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in Newcastle a man who was told last April that his rent would be paid direct, and was not told that he was still liable for non-dependant deduction, just a week ago received an arrears claim for £749, together with a threat of eviction?
In view of the continuing administrative chaos, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as there are already—before the changes that he mentioned — up to 3·9 million standard cases in the pipeline due for individual review this April, further changes simply cannot be implemented before 1 April without an even greater shambles?
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore now completely withdraw the changes and carry out the full-scale review that is manifestly needed before proceeding with what is a fundamentally unjust and inept measure?

Mr. Fowler: That is an absurd response from the hon. Gentleman. He does not even have the courage to welcome the review for which he has been calling.
I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points in turn. On administrative problems, only two major changes are going ahead in April—the change in tapers and in non-dependant deductions. The other structural changes have been postponed until November. Our advice is that those limited changes can be implemented by local authorities. Indeed, the changes in the third order— which is the most substantial order, and which will be laid before the House—are at the request of the local authorities. If they do not want that to go forward, clearly we shall listen to what they say. But my advice is that that is what they have asked us to do.
On losses, 4·5 million beneficiaries will not be affected by taper and minima changes. Of those who will be affected, more than 50 per cent. of all claimants, and 60 per cent. of pensioners, lose less than 50p, and 81 per cent. of all claimants, and 87 per cent. of pensioners, lose less than £1.
The hon. Gentleman asked about non-dependant deductions. He must decide whether he is in favour of the principle that a non-dependant in work, rather than the taxpayer, should make a contribution to rent. I regard that proposition as unassailable.
What we have in mind for the inquiry is a small review team under an independent chairman. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of local authorities. One of the jobs of the inquiry will be to determine whether local authorities — perhaps the local authority that he mentioned — have been responsible for any of the problems with the housing benefit scheme. The hon. Gentleman should not prejudge the issue.
On the principle of housing benefit, the hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the previous arrangements were widely criticised, were recognised as unsatisfactory and that the principle of this change has substantial support in all parts of the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard the Secretary of State say that there is to be a debate soon on this important matter. I have a duty to protect the subsequent business of the House—the motion to be moved by the Official Unionist party. I propose to allow questions to continue until 4.30 pm.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I assure my right hon. Friend that there will be a very wide welcome for what he has said this afternoon, not only from the Social Security Advisory Committee — to whose

advice he has listened so carefully and sympathetically —but from his many colleagues who are concerned that the poorest people might be disadvantaged by the previous arrangements.
My right hon. Friend said that something would be done about administration. Will he say a little more about that? Many of us feel that one of the great failures of the scheme was in that area, and that many poor people were badly disadvantaged by the length of time — in Birmingham and in other areas—that it took to sort out housing benefits.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for my proposals. I assure her that we are seeking to protect the interests of claimants, especially pensioners on low incomes.
Birmingham has had particular problems, some of which were related to the recent strike at the DHSS offices. That was one reason for some of the administration failures there. We want the inquiry to study how the scheme is being administered and to make proposals on how local authorities can improve the service for the public and for recipients.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State now admit that the scheme was hastily and badly conceived? It is no good blaming the increase in housing benefit need on anything other than the Government's economic policies, which have occasioned the need to give assistance to the poor elements in the community. Does he accept that the demand, both inside and outside the House from all parties will not be satisfactorily met by a concession to delay certain cuts in return for postponement of the children's needs allowance, and that the needs of the poorest in our community will not be met until tax credits and benefits are integrated into a proper scheme which will be simple and which will work both efficiently and fairly?

Mr. Fowler: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Before he goes too far down that road, he will have to tell us what the cost of the changes will be and how they will be afforded and financed. My advice on what he is proposing is that it would add substantially to the social security bill, which currently stands at £37 billion.
There will be a real increase in the children's needs allowance in November, and in April 1985 it will rise again beyond the point that we had originally proposed.
On the reasons for housing benefit, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1979 it was estimated that, under the old scheme, there were 300,000 people who would have been better off if they had transferred. I cannot believe that that was a justifiable position. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is defending it.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for such clear proof that he has been flexible in accordance with the commitments that he gave to the House. Will he give us one further spot of information? It was estimated that a large number of people under the original scheme stood to lose up to £3 a week. Can he give an estimate of what the new figure will be?

Mr. Fowler: A small number of people will lose more than £3 a week. The figure has been cut substantially. From memory, I do not think that there will be any losses of more than £3 a week in April. For other recipients, only 1 per cent. of the beneficiaries will be in that position.

Mr. Brynmor-John: The Secretary of State has twice spoken of advice received about the implementation of this scheme on 1 April. Has he sought and received an assurance from the local authorities that they can implement on 1 April the changes he mentioned this afternoon?
Secondly, the Secretary of State says that he has scrapped the changes in non-dependant allowance in the case of those on non-contributory invalidity pension. Will those receiving invalidity benefit still be expected to pay the increase in non-dependant allowance?

Mr. Fowler: We have taken advice on the administrative problems from our own administrative consultants, a private company called Logica. Those consultants see no reason why the limited changes that we are introducing should not be implemented on 1 April. The Minister for Social Security will discuss the matter with the local authorities within the next few hours.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is, "Yes".

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as far as it goes. I particularly welcome the announcement of a full review of the housing benefit scheme. However, the statement requires careful study. Is it not true that over a million pensioners will still have their housing benefit reduced?
On the operation of the scheme through the local authorities, there are still 3,000 people in the borough of Brighton who are not receiving their full entitlement and whose cases have not yet been dealt with. That being so, I cannot say what my attitude will be when we debate the proposals.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has been entirely frank and consistent throughout the discussion of these measures. I thought it right to announce the proposed changes in a statement to the House. All the relevant papers will now be available to my hon. Friend, and by the time of the debate I hope that I shall have persuaded him that the changes will substantially meet his objections.

Mr. Chris Smith: For all his talk of amelioration, will the Minister confirm that a pensioner with a small occupational pension, paying average rent and rates, will still be considerably worse off after these changes, although not as badly off as he would otherwise have been? Is it not true that a family with a low income and with dependents living in the household will also be worse off after April?

Mr. Fowler: The effect of the changes that I have announced is to reduce the losses that will be suffered. That will be the effect of the modification to the change in April, and of the reduction in rent taper from 31 to 26 per cent. Clearly we have not eliminated the losses for all groups, although 4,500,000 beneficiaries are unaffected by taper and minima changes.
At the moment, one in three households receives housing benefit. That is a very high figure, and we believe that this is one part of the social security budget that can and should be contained.

Mr. Charles Morrison: We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking account of the points made in the recent debate, and trying to meet them. I do not wish to appear ungrateful, but I and some of my hon. Friends

are somewhat surprised by his statement that the changes can now be made within Government expenditure plans. In that case, why was all the hassle necessary?
How long will it be before the committee reports, and will the committee consider not only housing benefit but also simplification of the social security system in general and the possibility of a tax credit system?

Mr. Fowler: The effect of the changes announced today is that the savings derived from housing benefit will be reduced. There will have to be other offsetting savings, and part of the finance will have to come from the contingency reserve.
I confirm that one of the aims of the inquiry will be to consider ways in which the scheme can be simplified. The Government would like to be able to simplify housing benefit, just as I should like to see a major simplification of the entire social security benefit system.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: When the Secretary of State describes today's changes as a "reasonable balance" the complete hollowness of that statement is perfectly apprarent. The changes announced in housing benefit and the concessions granted to certain categories of beneficiaries have been purchased by the Government at the expense of the housing benefit needs allowance for children. It is a sad epitaph on the attitude of the Government that progress in one area—made necessary as a result of pressure applied to the Government —is achieved only at the expense of another area. The elderly are benefiting at the expense of the children.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman listened to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), he has got it wrong and wrapped it round his neck. The introduction of the real increase in children's needs allowance will be postponed until November, but in April 1985 it will be increased to £1·50, which is more than we proposed previously. I reject what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Having listened to the concern expressed by some of my hon. Friends about the implications of the original scheme, the Secretary of State has done his best to improve and modify it. We appreciate what he has done. Will he recommend the same code of conduct to some of his Cabinet colleagues?
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of the changes he has announced this afternoon, no one below the needs allowance level will be now affected by the taper and minima changes? If he can, that is a substantial improvement.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I can confirm that there will be no change for those below the needs allowance. That concession will benefit 40,000 people—mostly pensioners—who will now not lose at all.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Government are to save £190 million by October on the backs of the poor. There are people in my constituency living in one room, who cannot afford to live, and it is those people who will pay the price. This £190 million is being taken away from the poor to fund concessions on capital gains tax and capital transfer tax, and concessions to the higher paid. That is a disgrace, and will further divide our society.

Mr. Fowler: rose——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tell the truth.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should calm down and look at the proposals. He will see that 4,500,000 beneficiaries are not affected by them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a sham.

Mr. Fowler: The people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will not be affected.
The hon. Gentleman must also understand that—I do not run away from the figures of the reduction in public spending — one in three households receives housing benefit, and the total cost is almost £4 billion. We propose a reduction of only about 4 per cent. in that total.

Mr. John Maples: As one of those who has had serious misgivings about the proposed increase in tapers, I find what my right hon. Friend has said today most welcome. If he ever finds himself in the position of having to find savings in this area again will he agree to seek them by increasing the non-dependants deduction, and not by increasing tapers? It seems not at all unreasonable that a working non-dependant should contribute about £9 a week. In fact, it should be much more.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. The principle that a non-dependant in work, rather than the taxpayer, should contribute to the rent is unassailable, although apparently the Opposition do not think so. Clearly, we shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State keeps saying that his justification for the proposal is that housing benefit goes to one third of all households. Is he aware that that is solely because the Government have deliberately forced up rents by so much? The Secretary of State has been extremely coy about the figures. He has given us the number of families who are not affected. Will he tell us the number of families that are affected, the number of pensioners who will be affected and the number that will lose more than £2 a week? Secondly, how many low-income families will be affected next November and how many will lose more than £2 a week? Will he explicitly tell the House what will be the total cut next November? Is it or is it not £190 million to £200 million?

Mr. Fowler: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says about the size of the cuts. The proposals will now save between £190 million and £200 million. There is no secret about that. With regard to the losses, there are about 6·5 million people in receipt of housing benefit at the moment. There are 4·5 million people who will not be affected. That means that something over 2 million will be affected. Of those, 53 per cent. of all claimants and 60 per cent. of pensioners will lose under 50p, and 81 per cent. of all claimants and 87 per cent. of pensioners will lose under £1 in April as a result of the proposals.

Bogside Mine, Fife

Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the implications of the decision by the National Coal Board to close the Bogside mine in Fife.
Last Monday, at column 9 of Hansard,I told the Secretary of State for Energy of my anxiety about the current position of the dispute in the industry and that it could be used by the National Coal Board as an excuse to threaten pit closures. My anxiety related to the position reported to me at local level of the relationships between management and men, in particular at the Bogside mine in my constituency.
I understand that on Friday last, 3 February, officials of the National Union of Mineworkers and others were summoned to the board's office in Scotland and abruptly told that, because of the deteriorating conditions at the mine, it would undergo closure.
There is of course, a process of redeployment of manpower and an indication from the NCB that certain work will be undertaken at Bogside in relation to salvage, and so on. As it affects the Bogside mine, the matter is specific. What makes it doubly important is that the NCB's action is the latest manifestation of closures in Scotland, designed to reduce capacity and manpower.
There are important questions to ask the board and Ministers, not the least being who makes the decision by management in Scotland not to request cover for safety, maintenance and emergency purposes. The cover is requested, provided and agreed in England. One can only assume that the board's decision not to cover it in Scotland was at the highest level. I think that this is an important aspect that should be ventilated.
Vital public assets are, apparently, being misapplied and wasted. This industry is not owned by the Coal Board or, for that matter, with respect, by the miners. It belongs to the nation. I urgently request Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to state their views on this vital matter. I estimate that between 500 and 800 jobs will be lost in my area and that the future of the whole of the Longannet complex and adjacent mines is threatened. These issues are of immense importance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the implications of the decision by the National Coal Board to close the Bogside mine in Fife.
I do not in any way underestimate the hon. Gentleman's argument. He knows that my decision is whether the matter should have precedence over the business today or tomorrow. I have listened carefully to what he has said, but I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time within 10 days that a pit closure in Scotland has been announced. We have


had no statement from the Secretary of State for Energy or the Secretary of State for Scotland. The mining industry in Scotland is in a state of trepidation and anxiety. Those fears must be allayed one way or another, and I ask you, most respectfully, to ensure that the Secretary of State of either of those Departments comes to the Floor of the House and explains what is happening.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for statements, but the Leader of the House is present and I am sure that he will have heard what has been said.

Oman University (Prime Minister's Conduct)

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to a contract to build a university in Oman.
The matter is specific as it concerns the dealings of the Prime Minister, her son and her husband, in relation to the Oman contract. It specifically concerns the interest and knowledge which each member of the family had of the other member of the family and the family's interest. Specifically, it concerns how the Prime Minister came to be involved in this contract in the first place, when we now know that there have been corrupt payments and share dealings by Omani and other interests. It is important because, as the Attorney-General said in 1948:
Unless you secure the very highest standards and propriety at the top of public life, you cannot expect to have good standards at lower levels."—[Official Report.]
The matter is important because for the past three weeks the Prime Minister has appeared to be saying to the House that her family is above the constitution, whereas Members of the House have been trying to say that her family is perhaps becoming the unacceptable face of democracy.
What makes the matter urgent are the precise revelations over the weekend about corrupt share dealings and payments by Omani and other interests. This matter is now damaging British credibility abroad and is the subject of intense speculation, not just in the middle east, but in America and France.
Every member of the House knows that the aura of suspicion spreads widely and tends to attach itself to the innocent and guilty alike. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the dignity of the House by saying that this is a matter which should have precedence today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to a contract to build a university in Oman.
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I listened carefully to what he said and to the exchanges in the House last week and the week before. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Foreign Secretary (Statement)

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this matter, but I ask for your guidance. Has the Foreign Secretary made any request to make a personal statement? If not, could you give myself and the House some guidance? You will recollect that on Friday morning I tabled a private notice question and that the Foreign Secretary came to the House to explain the omission of certain critical information from his statement on 26 January.
In the course of a supplementary answer to the Foreign Secretary he referred to an interview on Thames television the evening before. He said that
The television company concerned has apologised for having put the question in an inaccurate way." —[Official Report, February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 526.]
Later on, as the Foreign Secretary will be aware, the Tape carried a denial of that from the television company.
Later in the day the Foreign Secretary's officials had further meetings with the television company. I understand from a telephone conversation that I had an hour and a half ago with the television company that it had still not issued any apology to the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, that on Friday afternoon it even refused to go as far as issuing a joint statement in conjunction with the Foreign Office.
If, as seems to be the case, no request has been received from the Foreign Secretary—who on Friday made great play of the fact that he had come to give an explanation of his previous mishap— how can we ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the Floor of the House to make a statement clarifying the statement that he made on Friday, clarifying the statement that he made on 26 January?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have no power or authority to ask the Foreign Secretary to come and make a statement. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Leader of the House has noted the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Official Report

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order about what should, or should not, appear in the Official Report, I should be grateful if you would give consideration to a matter arising out of an incident on Wednesday 1 February. "Erskine May", quoting a previous Speaker's ruling, says:
The Official Report is a full report, in the first person, of all speakers alike, a full report being defined as one 'which though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted'".
On Wednesday there occurred at the beginning of an Opposition Day debate a slight hiccup—as it is called in some quarters — when the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was not in his place at the moment when he had intended to move the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. All was not lost, because the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) — like Horatio on the bridge—moved into the appropriate place and made the necessary remarks to get the debate under way.
It was, therefore, a little surprising when, having seen newspaper accounts of this incident and the sterling conduct of the hon. Member for City of Durham, I looked to check the precise record in the Official Report, only to find that it had not happened at all. There was no reference to the hon. Member for City of Durham. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney appeared to have opened the debate uninterrupted by any such incident. I made inquiries about it and discovered that there was, indeed, an accurate record of precisely what had happened when a Principal Assistant Editor of the Official Report wrote to me and said:
The facts are these. Mr. Shore, who was to have moved the Opposition motion, was not present. Mr. Mark Hughes rose instead and said exactly the following words: 'It is with some surprise that I find myself moving the motion in our name, but clearly there has been a minor mix-up. My right hon. Friend had anticipated a vote on the recent ten-minute rule Bill and therefore was not quite in his place. With permission, I would wish to give way to my right hon. Friend.' Mr. Speaker then said: 'I think that I had better help the hon. Gentleman by proposing the question again'.
There were brief further exchanges which I shall not trouble to read, and in his letter the Principal Assistant Editor said:
I believe that the report as I chose to edit it more faithfully reflects both the occasion and the mood of the House.
I must submit that the report reflected neither the occasion nor the mood of the House, which clearly enjoyed this minor incident and would have expected to find it recorded.
I want to place on record, Mr. Speaker, that at no time did I suppose that either the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney or the hon. Member for City of Durham had in any way sought to have this incident removed from our annals. Indeed, I read in my own local paper a day or two later an item headed, with a touch of humour—
Lost forever—my finest hour
in which the hon. Member for City of Durham was interviewed and was described as being
more than a bit miffed
when he was "mysteriously excluded" from the Official Report. He said:
It seems I have become an unperson.


I should not like such a fate to overtake the hon. Gentleman.
When looking for some kind of guidance or explanation for the way in which these things are dealt with, my mind went to the fact that with a sedentary intervention the Official Report sometimes finds it necessary to quote it because it has influenced the course of the subsequent debate and an hon. Member has referred to it. However, I am bound to say that, on looking at recent copies of the Official Report, that does not seem to be a governing practice, because sedentary interventions are reported quite extensively on very many occasions. On this occasion, however, it is clear that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was aware of what had happened and referred to it in his ensuing remarks when he said:
I begin by apologising to the House. I feel a little better about this apology in view of the slight touch of the late delivery problem with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) today." — [Official Report, 1 February 1984, Vol. 53, c. 293.]
Therefore, in this case the matter was referred to subsequently in debate, which strengthens the argument for its inclusion in the normal way. I ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, after consideration, to advise the House on what should, or should not, be included in the Official Report, on whether, in particular, hon. Members who are called to speak by you and who rise at the Dispatch Box or in their places to speak should be recorded, and perhaps on whether on all occasions those who interrupt from a sedentary position should have the same facility.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me, because the chance of ephemeral immortality is very rare. I believe that the Editor and you, Mr. Speaker, were quite entitled to take the view that what I said on that occasion did not materially change the activities of the House. But, as a fellow historian of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I believe that Hansard should check very carefully what it chooses to delete on terms simply of editorial discretion.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will welcome the presence and learning of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on this occasion, and the great and assiduous attention that he has paid to this matter. I must say that I share his view that this is an important issue. First, I do not think that posterity should be denied the words, however brief, of wisdom that were contributed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), who intervened so effectively, if so briefly, on Wednesday afternoon.
The important principle that lies behind what has been said so far concerns whether or not matters that are within the recollection of the House should be recorded and printed in Hansard. I believe that such matters should be so recorded and printed, and I very much regret that they were excluded. I very much hope that they will be included in the bound volume and that those responsible will take full notice of what has been said this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for raising this matter as a point of order. He quoted from page 263 of "Erskine May", but he did not complete the quotation. May I remind the House of the well-known words about Hansard given in "Erskine May"? It is that it should report that

which though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.
Within those restrictions a certain amount of discreet tidying-up is done by the editors, which is to everyone's benefit.
I support the decision not to record the momentary confusion in which last week's proceedings began, but I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman's second point, which is of some concern to me and, I think, to other hon. Members. A remark was made last week by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—who is not in the Chamber at the moment—which I did not hear. I do not always hear at this end of the Chamber exactly what is said below the Gangway. Had I heard it, I should have ruled it out or order.
One of the problems that the House faces is that of our proceedings being recorded as well as being taken down by Hansard. I hope the House will agree that remarks delivered from a sedentary position or in an otherwise disorderly manner should not normally be included unless the hon. Member in possession of the House specifically comments upon them, or if the expression requires comment from the Chair. That is why an hon. Member serves best the interests of the House and himself by ignoring such interruptions.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully submit to you that the reference to "mistakes" in the passage in "Erskine May" on editorial discretion does not refer—and in this context does not refer — to the occurrence which was the subject of the original submission to you? It relates to errors such as the substitution of one word or one name for another used by an hon. Member in the course of his speech when he obviously intended something else than that which he was heard to say. It cannot be held to cover the events in the course of proceedings in the House when, owing to one right hon. or hon. Gentleman not being present, another hon. Member, on being called by the Chair, validly addresses the House. In that sense I respectfully submit that it was not a mistake but an actual event and proceeding in the House which in this case was editorially omitted.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will take time to consider whether in this case, for the purpose of precedent, a direction should be issued to the Editor of the Official Report to restore some reference to a matter which became public knowledge.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred in your ruling, for which I am grateful, to the hon. Member "in possession of the House". Will you give further consideration to this incident in relation to that phrase? My submission was that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) was in possession of the House at the time. He was the person who had been called by you. No criticism could be made of him for having intervened from a sedentary position. On the contrary, according to your ruling he had been given the status of the person whose words should be recorded.
I should like to put a secondary point to you, Mr. Speaker, for your leisurely consideration. If an hon. Member's remarks have been left out of the Official Report, is he entitled to go to the Official Report and ask


for a correction reintroducing those remarks if he was the Member in possession of the House at the time? Would that right extend to other hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for raising the point. I do not think that I need give any further consideration to it. I am the servant of the House. It is obviously a fact that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) did rise and speak to this motion last week. I shall see that the report is corrected in the bound volume.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Northern Ireland Agriculture

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that agriculture in Northern Ireland is faced with disadvantages which do not confront farmers elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that costs to the intensive sectors have increased dramatically, that the overall impact of European Community membership has been increased productivity without increased profitability, and that the twin pillars of efficiency and stability set out in the Agriculture Act 1947 have been set aside, calls upon the Government to counteract the damaging effects of European Economic Community membership on the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland which directly and indirectly provides a minimum of 13 per cent. of the employment in Northern Ireland.
We are grateful to the Official Opposition for granting us half of a Supply day. If we reach the stage when a half day consists of two hours seven minutes, the workers will be most grateful, but I think that that time is far away.
When we were given the opportunity to choose a subject as usual a number of problems confronted Northern Ireland, such as constitutional issues, the fury over the weekend visit by a member of the royal family to Northern Ireland, the change of name from Londonderry to Derry, the security problems and the Maze prison. The business managers have ensured that we shall have a detailed examination of the problems in the Maze on Thursday. We shall have opportunities to discuss the other issues from time to time so we thought it right today to discuss a bread and butter issue that affects the lives of so many citizens in the Province.
Agriculture provides employment for about 13 percent. of Northern Ireland's population and that percentage is not restricted to those who farm the land or are directly involved in farming. It covers all those employed in ancillary industries, but not including the people who service and supply the machinery that is universally in use throughout the Province.
We were further moved to choose this topic because of the recent publication by the Northern Ireland Economic Council of "Public Expenditure Priorities: Agriculture", which examines many aspects of agriculture. It does not make many new proposals that are of direct benefit to the working farmer.
The report notes the decline in agriculture's contribution to the general economy of Northern Ireland. The reasons for that decline become apparent when one reads the report, but it was already apparent to those of us closely involved in the farming community.
The report draws attention to the fact that there has been an 11 per cent. fall in the value of inputs to agriculture in the last decade. That decline in the value of inputs must relate to the losses that we have suffered in the intensive sectors, and the shift to land-based production and the considerable increase in production from milk and other fatstock and grass-based industries.
It is interesting that potatoes seem to have remained stable in value, but that other production has declined fast, principally in the intensive sector, which consists basically of poultry and pigs.
Our motion does not call for a complete reversal in Government policy. It asks the Government to take measures to counteract the detrimental effects of EC policies that concentrate production in a decreasing number of sectors in Northern Ireland.
The diversity that Northern Ireland enjoyed has been eroded and we are beginning to have far too narrow a base for our comfort and for the welfare of the agricultural community. We do not condemn the Government for the measures that they have taken. They have been not only welcome, but necessary. We are trying to advise the Government that special measures are justified. We want fire-fighting measures to take care of a short-term problem, which should be dealt with in the short term but the long-term problems cannot be dealt with simply by putting a little ointment on the boil.
We call upon the Government to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the roots of the decline in agriculture in Northern Ireland. We call upon the Government to take clear policy decisions, which are understood by the agriculture community, for the long term, and to pursue those policies for the benefit of the farming community and for the Province in general.
Employment prospects in agriculture go beyond the working farmer. Let us examine the effects of the decline in the intensive sector on the people beyond the farm gate, because that is where the greatest loss in employment has occurred and will continue to occur.
The pig industry is in serious difficulty. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will draw attention to those problems in detail later. I shall deal with the general effect of the steady decline in the number of pigs and the lower throughput to the factories. All the benefits of volume and mass throughput are lost, but the overheads remain; therefore, the processing cost increases, the product in the shops becomes less competitive, less is sold and the demand decreases. That vicious circle goes back to the producer on the farm and to the chap who processes the pig in the factory. That inevitably leads to fewer jobs and reduced employment prospects in that sector.
By the same token, as less money goes into the agriculture industry there is a backlash on the amount of machinery and feeding stuffs that is bought and the total input into the industry—that is where the 11 per cent. fall-off must have arisen. As a result, there must inevitably be a loss of employment in the feed processing industry, and right hon. and hon. Members have had drawn to their attention the problems faced by the millers and their employees.
Agriculture is a basic industry. It is, perhaps, the only employment where the individual always buys on the retail market and always sells on the wholesale or manufacturers' market. Therefore, he always buys at top cost and sells at basic cost. It does not take much to go wrong to place him in serious difficulty. For that reason, we urge the Government to consider the problem with care and to formulate a long-term, cohesive policy. The root problems must be understood and the appropriate measures taken to remedy them.
To my surprise, the Government have seen fit to put down an amendment which refers to the advantages as well as the disadvantages that have accrued to Northern Ireland agriculture. The Minister will undoubtedly have come well prepared and will be able to tell the House in great detail what the advantages to Northern Ireland are, and which sectors have benefited from those measures.
However, the only two sectors to have gained any real advantage from it have been the milk industry, which is already running into serious problems, and the grain sector, which involves probably not more than a few hundred farmers in Northern Ireland. The grain-producing areas are very small in extent and the number of people who produce only grain are few. I know that, because I have some in my constituency. It is fortunate that some areas in my constituency are suitable for that product.
The intensive sector, where real employment possibilities exist, has been most severely hit. Large highly mechanised grain farms are of no advantage to the economy of Northern Ireland in the long run. Prairie farming—as it has been described in Great Britain—shows no real benefit to the economy because too few people are employed in it and too few people benefit from it. Our aim should be to support small family farms that would give employment to a great many people and would increase the number of animals, which have a high value factor in the factories, which is to the benefit of many people outside the direct farming industry.
One or two areas could be profitably explored. We export most of our sheepmeat live on the hoof. Why have steps not been taken to process it in Northern Ireland? Why have we not tried to protect and expand our poultry market instead of allowing it to be run down? Why have we allowed the loss of cheap grains, which were the basis of our intensive sector, and why have we not taken a hard look at ways around that? Why has there not been far more intervention grain available and at far more reasonable prices than has been the case hitherto?
The Minister wrote to me on 6 January in reply to our previous Appropriation debate on 8 December 1983. In his letter he said:
On farm income estimates I can of course confirm that 1973 was the peak year in the whole of the last decade. I thought you might find it helpful if I set out the figures for the years since 1970 to show the full pattern of change. Using as an indictor farm business income in real terms and taking 1978 as 100, the pattern has been as follows: 1970, 135; 1971, 127; 1972, 128; 1973, 149; 1974, 82; 1975, 76; 1976, 91; 1977, 107; 1978, 100; 1979, 69; 1980, 49; 1981, 75; 1982, 93.
If we use the figures published recently in the annual review of agriculture, the figure for 1983 will be 75, which is back to the 1981 figure.
At the end of the letter the Minister said that he could not agree with my apparent conclusion that lower incomes could be ascribed to the United Kingdom's entry to the Common Market. It is mighty funny that they cannot be ascribed to that, because I can see no other reason than the tremendous changes that perforce had to take place in agriculture arising from that entry. It does not matter which year or index is used from 1970 to the present because on every occasion since 1973 there has been a dreadful decrease in the farmers' incomes. With the exception of one or two sectors, that is true throughout the United Kingdom. Hon. Members can check those figures in table No. 26 of the annual review of agriculture; they are quite horrific.
We cannot and should not allow our love of the EC to blind us to the damaging effects that it has had. Agriculture needs stability and has not got it. It needs efficiency, as was set out in the 1947 Act, and the efficiency in which fanners are interested is profit. We have been steadily increasing production without a corresponding real or even partial increase in profits over that period. The Government must create conditions that make a real profit


and a reasonable standard of living possible for our farming community. At one time EC policy aimed to give industrial incomes to fanners, but it has not worked, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever do so. The Government should start down the road of protecting our farmers' incomes through national measures, for that alone will be the way to future prosperity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
acknowledges the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy and that there have been advantages as well as disadvantages to Northern Ireland agriculture as a result of European Community membership; welcomes the special provision of aid to ameliorate that industry's special disadvantages; and calls on the Government to continue to recognise the special problems of Northern Ireland agriculture.
I echo what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said as a preface to his remarks: it is a matter of great regret that we have such a short time to debate this important subject. It is no reflection on the Chair or on the other subjects for debate. We are rather too used to discussing Northern Ireland matters at dead of night; today we have been given an opportunity to debate them at a reasonable hour, but find that our time has been cut by one third. Therefore, I shall try not to take too long making my remarks, but I have much to say.
I was interested in the way in which the hon. Gentleman spoke to his motion, because I detected a somewhat different tone in his remarks to the way in which I interpreted the original motion. I was delighted that, among other things, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not condemning the Government for their action. He made a sensible point about the problems of Northern Ireland agriculture and its tendency to greater concentration. However, since the motion seemed to be condemning the United Kingdom's policies and the consequences of EC membership, the Government decided to put down an amendment.
Throughout many decades United Kingdom policies have been the bedrock on which a prosperous agricultural industry in Northern Ireland has been built. The annual review, the price guarantees, the capital grants, the marketing boards and the special arrangements for the hills are policies which conditioned the growth of Northern Ireland agriculture before entry into the EC. Today United Kingdom agricultural policies include continued help to the hills, continued capital grants, a continued system of marketing boards, a beef variable premium scheme, and a whole raft of aids and policies which contain some United Kingdom finance. They continue to provide a firm base for Northern Ireland's agricultural prosperity.
It is, frankly, nonsense to suggest that the stated purpose of the Agriculture Act 1947 — the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry—has been set aside, either as a consequence of United Kingdom policy or as a result of joining the European Community. Through its system of price support, with general price levels held substantially above

those obtaining in world markets, the common agricultural policy has underpinned rather than undermined the security of agriculture in the Community. Northern Ireland farmers could not survive without some protection or income support, and no right-minded person would contemplate for a moment a return to the open market conditions of, for example, the 1930s.
I accept, as does the amendment, that EC membership has not been an unmixed blessing for Northern Ireland agriculture, and later I shall discuss its advantages and disadvantages to farmers. However, it is worth remarking that farmers stand to gain from the wider advantages for the Northern Ireland economy and people which flow from EC membership. One example is the enlarged home market for Northern Ireland goods, with all that that means. Another example is the revenue from the social and regional funds — about £90 million this year — the size of which recognises Northern Ireland's special regional needs. Above all, the Community has made a contribution to the preservation of peace and democracy in western Europe.
One clear consequence of EC membership—the hon. Gentleman referred to it—is an increase in the price of cereals and of feedingstuffs. That has undoubtedly had an impact on the intensive livestock sector, especially on pigs and eggs. However, it must be remembered that the other member states have experienced similar price increases, and it can be shown—this is not fully appreciated—that Northern Ireland's relative position, at least vis-a-vis Great Britain, has barely changed, if at all, since we joined the EC.
Nevertheless, the intensive sector, despite massive Government support, has declined, which has led to the greater concentration of agricultural production into a few sectors, as the hon. Gentleman said and as the recent report of the Northern Ireland economic council pointed out. The intensive sector would benefit from a freeze in cereal prices, as proposed by the Commission, which would represent a reduction in real terms. Those protagonists of the Northern Ireland intensive livestock sector will have heard with some interest what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said during Question Time on Thursday about the Government's preference for a cut rather than a freeze in cereal prices.
It has been suggested that Ministers have not fought hard enough in Brussels on behalf of Northern Ireland agriculture. The facts refute that nonsense. Successive Ministers of Agriculture have made sterling efforts on behalf of Northern Ireland during negotiations in Brussels. Ministers have laboured time after time towards special arrangements for Northern Ireland. A few examples would include the feed price allowance, while we were allowed to operate it, the movement last year to Northern Ireland of 50,000 tonnes of intervention grain, the special arrangements defraying national insurance for some industries, the calculation of gross indigenous production under the sheepmeat regime, the meat industry employment scheme and the milk consumers subsidy. I could continue to list the schemes which have been negotiated by Ministers to favour Northern Ireland.
The motion argues that Northern Ireland agriculture has been damaged by United Kingdom and EC policies. In comparison with what is it claimed that Northern Ireland agriculture has been damaged? In comparison with the past? In comparison with Great Britain? In comparison with other industries? Or is it talking about the future? Let


me make my case. I have already referred to the effect on feedingstuff prices of joining the Community; and I said that, relatively speaking, the position of Northern Ireland against that of Great Britain has not changed since the years immediately preceding entry.
I was interested to read in the first paragraph of the report of the Ministry of Agriculture for the year ended 31 March 1968 that
The differential between the price of feeding stuffs in Northern Ireland and Great Britain continues to be a serious disadvantage to Northern Ireland livestock producers. Mainly for this reason the recovery in pig production has been rather slow.
That was the report for the year ended 31 March 1968, but it could have been similar to what I or anyone else might have said from the Dispatch Box in the past year or two. The differential existed three or four years before entry into the Common Market.
The 1969 report recorded the Ministry's welcome for the policy directives given by the United Kingdom Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1968 together with the financial incentives provided to implement them at the 1969 annual price review. Northern Ireland agriculture was always dependent to a substantial extent on United Kingdom policies, even under devolution, and some of the problems faced then, outside the EC, were the same in kind if not in degree as they are now. If Northern Ireland were not subject to EC or United Kingdom policies, it would not have had access to as many resources to assist its agriculture as has been the case in the past.
What about the comparison with Great Britain? Much play is often made of this. The effects of the peripheral location of Northern Ireland in relation to the main United Kingdom markets have been recognised for many years. They led to a disadvantage comparing Northern Ireland with Great Britain in respect of certain important agricultural inputs and outputs. Special aids in Northern Ireland, above those available in Great Britain, have been paid subsequently, amounting to more than — in some cases much more than — £20 million a year in recent years from both United Kingdom and Community sources. Those payments do not close the whole gap between average producer prices and average feed costs, but they make a significant contribution to bridging it. It must never be forgotten that other disadvantaged groups and regions in the United Kingdom do not so benefit. I regard this as additional evidence to the effect that, on balance, United Kingdom policies are far from damaging to Northern Ireland agriculture in relation to agriculture in Great Britain.
I mentioned the comparison with other industries. Although throughout the Western world the recession has bitten deep and taken its toll of small manufacturing businesses and jobs, farmers in most places, including Northern Ireland, have been spared the worst effects of that recession. To the extent that United Kingdom and EC policies have been effective in so sparing them, those policies have been well advised. But it behoves those who attack such policies in the motion to consider how farmers in Northern Ireland would have fared without the safeguards of minimum prices for imported agricultural produce, export restitutions to help exports, intervention purchasing for some products, aids for consumption, and the working of the green currency system.
What of the future? What about the effects of the reform of the common agricultural policy? I could

speculate for some time about that, but it has already been made clear that the Government are committed to changes that will reduce the ever-increasing burden of the cost of the common agricultural policy. The Community cannot continue to produce excessive surpluses which must be disposed of at a penalising and unacceptable cost. Rather than speculate, it would be wise to wait to see what emerges. Of course, the Commission's present proposals would, if implemented, be damaging. They would hurt every member state's farming interests, not just those of Northern Ireland. It is clear already that the eventual compromise will look different from what the Commission originally proposed. Inevitably, there will be some pain, especially in the milk sector, but we believe that it is possible to reform the policy to allow the efficient to prosper and the taxpayer to gain. Yet we are still charged with damaging policies.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East drew attention to dairying, and I suppose that dairying is at the heart of Northern Ireland's agriculture. What is the comparison with years gone by? In 1965, when Northern Ireland had its own devolved Government, there were 196,000 dairy cows in the Province, and in 1983 there were 294,000—an increase of about 50 per cent. The numbers rose virtually without pause throughout that period. In 1965, the average yields of Northern Ireland diary cows were 10 per cent. less than the United Kingdom levels, and in 1983 they were 5 per cent. less and closing. Surely that is a sign of improving efficiency. Yet the motion said that efficiency has been "set aside". In 1965, milk production was 580 million litres and in 1983 it was 1,403 million litres. I should think that the milk industry is in a pretty healthy condition.
This year we shall be exporting more beef outside the United Kingdom than ever before—30 per cent. of total production or 45,000 tonnes. About half of it will go to the EEC and the other half will probably be helped by export restitution payments. That looks like a success story for the beef industry.
Has EEC entry damaged the sheepmeat industry in Northern Ireland? It does not look like it has, according to the figures and to those who know anything about that matter. In 1965, there were just over 1 million sheep in Northern Ireland, and in 1978—just before the Common Market regime was brought in — there were slightly fewer than 1 million sheep. By 1983, the number of sheep had increased to more than 1·3 million.
There have been reductions in pig numbers and in egg-laying poultry, but a substantial increase in poultrymeat production. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East rightly referred to the need for greater added value.
Have not the processing plants benefited from FEOGA payments and from Government grant aid to assist them to expand? They clearly would not have received the money from FEOGA if Northern Ireland had not been in the Common Market. Time and time again, we can see the advantages that have come to Northern Ireland from Common Market membership. Capital investment has been forthcoming, and there have been special grants in aid to supplement what has been forthcoming from the national Government to help those in the less-favoured areas.
There can be no doubting the importance that the Government attach to agriculture in the Northern Ireland economy as a source of economic and social stability, but we must all be aware of the critical years ahead for farmers


throughout the Community—on the Continent, in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland — as the financial pressures to bring supply and demand into a better balance become irresistible. The Government have a good record in recognising the special disadvantages facing Northern Ireland agriculture and in taking action to ameliorate them through the provision of special aid.
Today, Northern Ireland agriculture, with some obvious exceptions, is in a relatively healthy condition in terms of output and animal numbers. Every major sector is operating at a higher level than in the mid-1960s— apart from egg-laying and pigs. That is due in no small part to the support and assistance that the industry has received from Government in material form and through the careful and vigorous pursuit of the industry's interests in Europe and elsewhere. As negotiations proceed in the coming days, and possibly weeks, I assure the House and the farmers in the Province that the special and continuing problems of Northern Ireland's agriculture, which, understandably, cause anxieties, will not be overlooked.

Mr. Clive Soley: The official Opposition also regret the fact there is relatively little time in which to debate this important subject. Agriculture is of central importance and will continue to be so in Northern Ireland long into the future.
I read with considerable interest the motion moved by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on behalf of the Official Unionist party, and the Government's amendment. There are two remarkable features about this issue. Both the Government and the Official Unionist party, who normally strongly support a monetarist approach to policy and do not like support systems for industry, are only too keen to support this approach to agriculture.
On the Government's part that approach might have something to do with the fact that they have always supported the farmer and the Cabinet is full of part-time farmers. On the part of the Official Unionist party, it has much to do with the realities of economic life in Northern Ireland. Official Unionist Members recognise the importance of Government and EEC subsidies to agriculture. Although both the Government and the Official Unionist party are committed to the free market, as they call it, there is never any delay in rattling the collection box under the nose of a British Minister or, in this case, an EEC Minister.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said—I believe that I am recalling his words correctly—that he saw it as the Government's responsibility to create a position where farmers could make profits. That is an interesting view of economic policy from a member of the Official Unionist party. It is the view which would, incidentally, be supported by the Government, although they do not like to admit that.
Another remarkable feature about the motion and the amendment is that they make no mention of agriculture in the context of the island of Ireland. One would almost think, after listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East and the Minister of State, that nothing exists south of the border except the Atlantic ocean. In fact, the link in agriculture is crucial and is becoming more important daily. I shall have more to say

on that point as I go through my speech, which I shall keep fairly short in view of the number of Back-Bench Members from Northern Ireland who wish to speak.
It has been said that agriculture in Northern Ireland provides about 10 per cent. of employment and about another 3 per cent. if the ancillary industries are added. Northern Ireland has had lower labour productivity than Great Britain, but that reflects small-scale and part-time farming and, therefore, is not strictly comparable.
The Labour party has always recognised that the EEC was formed partly to subsidise inefficient agriculture. It was recognised that that was a crucial measure to take in Europe's economy. The EEC was not designed to subsidise inefficient industry. It comes as no surprise to me, therefore, that Britain did not benefit. Within the terms of United Kingdom membership Northern Ireland was in the worst possible position, yet it not only received no subsidies for inefficient industry, but less support for its agriculture.
The Minister asked about comparisons, whether we were comparing Northern Ireland industry with the past, with other industries or with Great Britain. The one aspect with which he did not invite comparison was the South, but if one makes that comparison one finds that the South has done much better.
The EEC has brought about the concentration of production. It is significant and relevant to note that beef production has risen by 28 per cent. and milk production by 34 per cent. The agriculture industry is thus extremely vulnerable to EEC policy directives and changes of policy. A recent example is the super levy on milk. I shall not go into detail on that in view of the shortage of time, as I think that everyone knows the arguments — the threat to doorstep deliveries, associated industries, and so on.
The intensive livestock sector was based on cheap cereal imports. With the more expensive EEC grain, things are now more difficult for Northern Ireland farmers. As the Minister and others have acknowledged, this has caused difficulties for pig producers. Indeed, I have seen figures suggesting that pig producers lose about £3 per pig because of feed import costs.
The EEC recognises that Northern Ireland has special problems. Consequently, 45 per cent. of agricultural land is now designated as a less favourable area and it is intended that the proportion should increase to 75 per cent.
Although Northern Ireland has not done well out of the EEC, the Republic has done well. That is the comparison that the Minister should have made, but which he failed to make. The Republic has had the second highest growth rate in the EEC — about 3·8 per cent. — for the past decade. At the same time, and of crucial importance, the differences in the economic structures of both North and South Ireland have been diminishing.
When I talk about harmonising the economy of North and South, as I have done on many occasions, I am simply recognising the hard facts of economic life. Usually both the OUP and the Government are anxious to stress that political philosophy must take account of the hard facts of economic life, but they do not seem to be doing so in this case, as we know that the two economic structures have been coming closer together and becoming consistently more interdependent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I give way with some reluctance, as I am conscious of eating into the time available for Northern Ireland Members.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Republic is receiving EEC subsidies to the tune of £1 million per day. Northern Ireland receives nothing like that amount. That must surely be damaging. When one takes into account additionality as well, it is a different ball game altogether.

Mr. Soley: Precisely. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he may end up agreeing with me—much to his horror I suspect — that there is real scope for co-operation. He should also bear in mind the real benefits obtained by the South and extended to the North either at the direct request of the South or through direct or indirect support. Examples are the suckler cow premium, the calf premium and export refunds for beef. Various other developments of direct or indirect advantage to the North have been obtained by the South and handed to the North by the South, or encouragement has been given to linking them — sometimes with opposition from the British Government until they changed their position.
It is of considerable political and economic significance that Northern Ireland's guaranteed prices and deficiency payments were replaced by the famous CAP payments at the same time as Northern Ireland lost its preferential trading position with Britain. Again, that put Northern Ireland in a losing situation. The OUP motion is right to state that Northern Ireland has done very badly as a result of both British and EEC policy. It has had some benefit from EEC policy and some benefit from British policy, but it could have had far more benefit from both if the British Government had considered the matter in the context of the needs of the agriculture industry in the island of Ireland.
This is the key comparison which the Minister failed to make. In the North, net farm incomes have declined in real terms by 20 per cent. since the 1970s, whereas in the Republic they have increased by 44 per cent. It would be a brave person who sought to argue that the 44 per cent. increase in the Republic was not due in large measure to EEC membership. It is therefore valid and proper to ask why the same benefit has not accrued to Northern Ireland.
In the short term, subsidies are necessary to allow structural change to take place. I suspect that the Minister agrees about that. If so, perhaps he will try to persuade the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues that the same applies to industry. They are quick enough to pull the skids out when industry seeks subsidies, but they do not take the same attitude to agriculture, which I believe is the most heavily subsidised sector of the British economy. We never hear complaints from the Government about that, despite their anxieties about BL, BR or any other area of industry receiving subsidies.
We recognise that subsidies are necessary initially to allow change to take place without excessive hardship. In the long run, however, we must examine the economic requirements of Ireland's economy as a whole, and agriculture and related industries must play a central role in that. However much Unionist Members may dislike it, at the end of the day they will have to face dreadful consequences in the economy, with a falling standard of living and rising unemployment, if they do not meet the challenge of co-operation with the South to benefit farming and related industries on both sides.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council report states that resources need to be redeployed to encourage agriculture and ancillary industries to diversify. We have much sympathy with many of its recommendations, such as expanded local cereal acreage, opposition to the milk superlevy, the overhaul of priorities in research and development and the link with industry, perhaps through a food sector research committee, an idea which seems to have good potential. The report also emphasises the importance of the processing industry and stresses the need to increase agricultural output with, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, higher value added in the processing activities. That is extremely important.
We must, however, consider the potential of Ireland as a whole. It should be a world leader in agriculture. The South already has a good position and is improving it. The North should be part of that, because agriculture is the dominant sector of the economy of the North. The North should be benefiting, but it is not benefiting sufficiently. In that sense, I find myself in sympathy with the OUP motion as far as it goes.
The Republic, as a food exporter, sought devaluation of the agricultural refund rate so as to obtain maximum prices. The United Kingdom, as an importer, delayed devaluation. As a consequence, Northern Ireland suffered. Indeed, it is reasonable to argue that if Northern Ireland had its own pound, that pound would be grossly overvalued. That, too, must be taken into account and its consequences evaluated.
The need for co-operatives also affects both North and South. In the South, 24 per cent. of landowners are organised in co-operatives. The proportion in the North is only 1 per cent. I suspect that there is considerable potential for the smaller and part-time farmers in the North if more consideration and perhaps financial assistance were given to that kind of development. Big farmers do well out of the EEC. Small farmers receive some protection—as I have said, the EEC was designed to protect them—but the smallest farmers and the part-timers obtain the least total cash benefit. That aspect should therefore be considered.
I recognise that in this context the boom in the South ended in about 1980, but that makes the need for co-operation between North and South even greater. As I have said, there is already a certain amount of co-operation. Drainage schemes, animal and plant health and Lough Foyle are good examples. Returning to the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), however, the key area for close and detailed co-operation is in approaches to the EEC. Nothing could be dafter, more counter-productive and less helpful to the farmers of Northern Ireland than to have the South putting in its case while the British put in a case primarily for Britain and Northern Ireland loses on both. That is why Members of the Official Unionist party have tabled the motion. It is the result of what has been happening to them; they have been squeezed between the Republic and Britain, and they need to get their act together and recognise that, with the South, they could greatly improve the position of agriculture.
Joint applications to the EEC for agricultural support and uniform currency arrangements would be of great benefit. Co-operation between the intensive sector in the North and the cereals sector in the South, and particularly trade between the two, should be looked at as a major area.
Closer liaison between the meat marketing commissions in the North and South, and the exchange of scientific, commercial and training personnel, would be of benefit.
This is an important debate, too important to be packed into the short time that is available. In all seriousness, I urge Unionist Members to accept that they have failed to draw attention to the all-important fact that they have been squeezed between the successful policy of the South and the policy of the British Government, which has not put the needs of Northern Ireland farmers first. They have come second, and that is why they have tabled the motion, which is critical of the Government, and why the Government have defended their position in their usual terms, by more or less ignoring the special needs of Northern Ireland and claiming that they have done a little to help. It has been a little, but a very little.
Every time that we hear about the Prime Minister taking her wheelbarrow to Europe to get it filled with cash to bring back here so that she can disperse it all over the place, what happens? She returns with an empty wheelbarrow, and I am reasonably sure that when that wheelbarrow does come back with some cash in it, first it will not be much and, secondly, that what there is will not be going to Northern Ireland. Personally, speaking as a London hon. Member, I find that sad and a reflection on the duties of the Government.

Mr. John David Taylor: As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, this debate is about one of the most important issues in Northern Ireland. I have had occasion to speak in the House already—because of the problems of Northern Ireland—for one cannot take one's time to make one's maiden speech in the way that one would like. I have had to participate in Question Time and I had to make a statement following the assassination of my friend and colleague, Mr. Edgar Graham. Today, therefore, I rise to make my formal maiden speech, but I gather that I am in good company in that the Prime Minister took 14 months before making her maiden speech. In other words, a maiden speech is not something into which one wants to rush.
I wish at the outset to place on record my appreciation of the way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker have received us in this House. Mr. Speaker made us most welcome as new hon. Members, and that made me recall the first occasion when I entered Parliament in the Northern Ireland House of Commons in 1965. I was reminded of the kindness and generosity that was extended to me, as a very young Member in those days, by the then Speaker of Stormont, Sir Norman Strong, who regrettably has since been assassinated by IRA terrorists in the Province.
This is not my first maiden speech but my third; not in this House, of course, because my first speech took place in 1965 in Stormont; my second was in 1979 in the European Assembly, as the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) will recall; and this is my maiden speech in this House.
It is normal that one pays tribute to one's constituency when making a maiden speech. Mine is a new constituency which was cut out of the three existing constituencies of Down, North, Down, South and Belfast, South. On behalf of my constituents I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the

Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) for the way in which they have represented the people of Strangford.
The Strangford constituency starts in the suburbs of south Belfast and extends up through the market and commercial centre of the main town of the constituency, Newtownards, and then down through the Ards peninsula, which surrounds the attractive area of Strangford lough. The constituency has a large farming interest as well as a considerable fishing interest, and I regret that the Minister did not refer to the problems facing the fishing industry in Northern Ireland as a result of the EEC's present common fisheries policies. Tourism is an important subject in the constituency, and all hon. Members who know Northern Ireland will agree that Strangford lough is the most attractive tourist area in the Province.
Above all, the best tribute that I can pay to the constituency of Strangford is that it has the best record in Northern Ireland for being law-abiding. Would that the whole of Northern Ireland was as law-abiding a society as is my constituency. That is the ambition that we all have for the areas that we represent in the Province. But although it is a hard-working, go-ahead community with a good record for maintaining the peace, I regret to say that even during the short period when I have been a Member of this House — since June of last year — and even though there have been no incidents of terrorism in my constituency, three of my constituents have been killed, one only last week, as a result of IRA terrorist activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) pointed out how vital agriculture was to Northern Ireland, and the figures have been quoted. I know that well in my other capacity as a European Member for the whole of Northern Ireland. Agriculture takes up more of our time in the European Assembly than does any other issue. It is vital to the Province not only because it is a large industry but because the area is suffering from over 20 per cent. unemployment. There are no alternative jobs for our people and it is, therefore, important that the viability and growth of agriculture is encouraged.
Agriculture contributes 6 per cent. of our gross domestic product and employs 15 per cent. of our people. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, and even the Minister, agreed that membership of the EEC had damaged agriculture in Northern Ireland — albeit the Minister was selective in the presentation of his case, for having said that some items had been damaged, he concentrated on the few items in the industry which may have grown during the last 10 years or so of our Community membership. It is important, therefore, that we record just what has been the effect of our EEC membership on agriculture.
In terms of constant 1975 prices, gross output has increased by only 2 per cent. That has been the net result, as recorded by the Northern Ireland Economic Council in its publication, "Public Expenditure Priorities: Agriculture." Since we joined the EEC, net farm incomes have declined and employment in agriculture in Northern Ireland has fallen by 19 per cent. Those general figures show what has happened and it is misrepresenting the issue and misleading the House to concentrate on the few items


that have prospered, and to imply that there has been a general growth in Ulster agriculture because of membership of the EEC.
If we look further into the publication by the Northern Ireland Economic Council, we find, for example, on page 11 that since joining the Community, in volume terms the output of our fruit industry has fallen by 20 per cent., vegetable output by 21 per cent., pigmeat by 38 per cent. and the production of eggs by 40 per cent. The Minister concentrated on the way in which milk production had grown, and I agree that the figures for milk show that output has grown by 51 per cent. since we joined the European Community. However, the milk industry would have grown in any event.
There was a shortage of milk in the United Kingdom when we joined the Community and there was great opportunity for growth within the industry. Since then we have spent so much money on financing inefficient milk producers elsewhere in the Community — we have sent British taxpayers' moneys to other countries—that we have ended up with a surplus of milk within the Community, which will damage the Northern Ireland milk producer from this year onwards. It appears that the Minister has no solution to the problem. The pig industry, the egg industry and the intensive sector of agriculture have all been hit and now it is the turn of the milk industry, which has prospered over the past 10 years, to enter a period of great difficulty.
We know why the intensive sector has been damaged. The House will recall that at one time MCAs worked against Northern Ireland. By joining the EC, our access to cheaper feeds from America was terminated. Since then the EC has almost closed the door to the availability of feed substitutes such as manioc from, for example, Thailand. Since last year the EC has clamped down on those imports. We know that the EC's intervention operation has failed with the one exception—it was a one-off occasion to which the Minister referred—of the removal of intervention grain to Northern Ireland last year. We welcomed that decision, which was taken by the Community in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government. Regrettably, however, it was a one-off act and the Minister is unable to say that the resulting action will continue. The intensive sector of agriculture in Northern Ireland needs further assistance.
The dairy and fatstock sectors have benefited in the past, but the fatstock industry is now facing problems. The Community is moving towards the abolition of the beef premium scheme which is under attack. Unless the United Kingdom Government succeed in presenting a good case, one of the main aids to the beef industry in Northern Ireland will be removed.
I regret that the Minister did not refer to fishing, which particularly affects the constituencies of Strangford and Down, South and the ports of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. Portavogie is in my constituency in the Ards peninsula and it has benefited from the European regional development fund, which has permitted the modernisation of the harbour and the erection of a covered market.
Difficulties are created by membership of the EC. For example, our waters are now open to other nations and the Isle of Man is proceeding with a 12-mile limit. Under the allowable catch system, the quota system, the Northern Ireland fleet has an over-capacity of about 40 per cent. It is not good enough for the Government to present the odd thing that has done well. It is important that the

Government should consider the overall situation and recognise that there has not been the advance in agriculture that we would have liked. There has not been an advance in the fishing industry, and, indeed, there have been great difficulties. Against that background, the Government should say, "This is how we shall solve the problem." Instead, not one solution has been presented to the House this afternoon in answer to the problems that beset the various agricultural commodities.
I am sorry that the Minister did not refer to the vegetable industry. The industry has declined and I should like to hear how the Government intend to improve it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the possibility of developing forestry in Northern Ireland.
Agriculture is an important issue in our Province. It is one which requires special recognition. We do not ignore the fact that the Government have carried out various measures that have given special assistance to the farmers in the Province. Nonetheless, we believe that farming there requires more of the attention of Her Majesty's Government and the European Community.
When Ulster agriculture is being specifically considered at a meeting of the Council or by a meeting of Agriculture Ministers, it is unfortunate that a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office with responsibilities for agriculture never accompanies the United Kingdom Minister. Such a Minister should be part of the team when Northern Ireland is specifically on the Council's agenda. I regret that that is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government, and I should like them to give further consideration to including a Northern Ireland Minister.
It is clear from the amendment that the Government recognise the problem of Northern Ireland agriculture. We now ask them to demonstrate that they have the vigour and the will to overcome the problem.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on making his maiden speech. I did not hear his maiden speech in Stormont because I was not then a Member of that place. However, I heard his maiden speech at a meeting of the Northern Ireland Convention. I know that in the first Northern Ireland Assembly he vowed that he would remain silent, which pleased his enemies and perhaps his friends as well. I heard also his maiden speech at the European Assembly and I listened with great interest to what he had to say to us today.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council has issued an important report. The council cannot be presented by any stretch of the imagination as a farmers' body. It is largely weighted with representatives from industry and trade unions that are associated with industry. However, page 7 of the report, which I commend to the House, includes an important report on agriculture. I do not go along with all of the council's recommendations, but one passage in page 7 states:
In general therefore the situation of the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland is quite unique in the context of the United Kingdom: producers face disadvantages which do not confront their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The House needs to face that important fact. The disadvantage results partly from the fact that Northern Ireland is on the periphery of the United Kingdom and on the periphery of the Community. However, decisions have been taken by the United Kingdom Government and also


by the Community that have been detrimental to Northern Ireland's agriculture. It is important that we consider it as it was and recognise what has happened to it during our membership of the EC. It is important also that we consider the present position.
Before our entry into the EEC, Northern Ireland agriculture had a most successful intensive sector, especially for pigs and poultry. There was a reason for that. The reason was that Northern Ireland people are hard-working. They still are. Some of them inherited small farms. There was no alternative employment so they decided to work hard and to do their best to make an income from which they could bring up their families and be responsible citizens in our community. I praise the industry of the small farmer in Northern Ireland. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his industry, courage and dedication.
There was only one thing that the small farmers could do—develop the intensive sector of agriculture and go into pigs and poultry. That they did. The main prop of the intensive sector for those hard-working small farmers was, of course, access to the world market for feeding stuffs, and being able to purchase them at a reasonable cost, although it was above the cost of what was available to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, with their industry and dedication, they made a success story of pigs and poultry.
I shall look at the figures. In 1973 there were 112,000 breeding sows and in 1983 there were 69,000. That shows the devastation that has taken place. It is the same in the poultry industry. In 1973 there were 7,125,000 egg layers but today there are 3,750,000. Therefore, almost 40 per cent. of our intensive sector has been destroyed. No amount of platitudes from either the Government or Opposition Front Bench can alter those sad and terrible facts.
What is left in the intensive sector, both in pigs and poultry, is now threatened. If we could be assured that we could save what we have, I am sure that Northern Ireland representatives would be happy. However, we are not sure whether we shall retain even what is now left.
Therefore, we must ask why Northern Ireland has fared so badly. People who are familiar with farming conditions in England have great difficulty in appreciating the difference in Northern Ireland, which is due to the lack of a significant cereal alternative to grass. In England cereals represent over 36 per cent. of the area of crops and grass, whereas in Northern Ireland they represent less than 7 per cent. In spite of generally higher prices in Northern Ireland than in England, the cereal acreage has fallen marginally, while in England there has been a significant increase. That must be emphasised. Because of unsuitable conditions, most of our farmers cannot take advantage of the most profitable sector for farmers in the EEC, and cereals cannot be regarded as a viable alternative to grass in Northern Ireland. Let us put it firmly on the line. We are at a grave disadvantage. EEC membership has reacted against the intensive sector of our industry.
Not only this Government but other Governments have failed to take effective steps to cushion the effects of our membership of the EEC. Some 40 per cent. of that valuable sector of agriculture has been destroyed because of that. The intensive sector still provides employment for

10,000 people. Therefore, what is left is an important sector. We should like to hear what steps the Government will take to protect, defend and maintain it.
Evidence was presented to the agriculture committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Ulster Farmers Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association, the Minister of State, Lord Mansfield, the Pigs Marketing Board, the Milk Marketing Board, the Livestock Marketing Commission and the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association. The conclusion, based upon that evidence, was that
the Government should … accept that Community cereal prices be brought progressively into line with world prices.
Until we get that, we cannot maintain our intensive sector. The committee stated that the Government should also accept that
the gap between the intervention price for minimum quality breadmaking wheat and feed wheat be reduced … argue that intervention stocks of cereals should be available on equal terms to all regions and attempt to obtain the transfer of intervention grain to Northern Ireland on an on-going basis … oppose vigorously any suggestion that a cereals-deficit area such as Northern Ireland be denied access to cereal substitutes at competitive prices … seek to secure for the benefit of both the cereals and intensive livestock sectors, a scheme to encourage the incorporation of cereals in animal feed, operated under the aegis of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.
I trust that the Government will take some of those steps to help us in this time of need.
I was rather surprised to hear the Minister talk in the way he did about beef. He said that it was a success story. However, when one looks at the figures, one does not see the success that he sees. In 1974 we had 339,000 beef cows in Northern Ireland. Let us remember that this is said to be a success story. In 1983 we had 197,000. I fail to understand how the Minister can tell us that that is a success story.
As the right hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted in his maiden speech, if the United Kingdom beef variable premium scheme is eliminated, that will be serious for Northern Ireland. As an alternative to substantial intervention, the beef variable premium scheme forms the mainstay of the support for producers' returns. It is also a benefit to consumers because beef is supplied at reasonable prices. If the scheme is removed—it is proposed that it should be—there will be serious implications in Northern Ireland, where access to intervention is already restricted by the physical limitations of handling and storage facilities. Therefore, beef is not a success story.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) painted a picture of the Republic's farmers being in paradise. When I read their journals, it seems that they are in "Paradise Lost" rather than paradise. The hon. Gentleman seems to know what is happening in the Irish Republic as every time the House discusses matters relating to Northern Ireland he directs his eyes to Dublin first and then to Belfast. He might get a squint if he keeps directing his eyes in that direction. However, if he knows anything about what is happening in the Irish Republic he will know that all is not well with farmers there.
I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that the farmers of Northern Ireland are under no obligation for what has happened in Europe because in Europe I have seen the representatives of the Republic fighting the very things that would be beneficial to farmers in Northern Ireland. I should like to say with all my strong convictions as a


traditional Unionist that I would not vote in the European Assembly against anything that would benefit another part of Europe, provided that it was not detrimental to Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Hume: Give an example.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The beef variable premium scheme. They try to destroy it because they want to put their beef into intervention the easy way and do not want to produce the quality of beef that Northern Ireland is able to produce and sell in Europe. Moreover, let no one think that Ministers from Dublin are lining up in the Council of Ministers to support Northern Ireland farmers. They definitely are not. I have mentioned the attitude of those representatives in the Assembly. Northern Ireland farmers do not need to say thank you to Dublin.
The basis of the Community is to deal with regions rather than with countries. It deals with regions that have similar problems. That is exactly what happened in regard to the calf premium. It was not introduced in the Republic first. It was introduced first in a place which is very like the Republic—Italy—some 10 years ago to arrest the decline in herds there. I shall not go on to say why I think Italy is like Southern Ireland. I shall leave that to hon. Gentlemen's imagination. The premium was extended to Greece, then to the Republic and to Northern Ireland in 1982. To hear the hon. Member for Hammersmith, one would think that people in Dublin were carrying a flag to help the farmers of Northern Ireland. That is not so.
What the farmers of Northern Ireland have got they have got by their own diligence and through their own representatives. Even the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has occasionally been in a lobby different from that of the representatives of the Irish Republic. With regard to the beef variable premium scheme he associated himself with the right hon. Member for Strangford and me. I am glad to see him nodding in agreement. That was a vital matter. We owe nothing to the representatives from Dublin, all of whom voted against it. We should not think that because the South gets something and the North also get it that we are obliged to the South. That is just part of the Community's regional policy.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will remember that the move to abolish the calf premium will be disastrous for our beef. We shall lose at least £10 million if that proposal goes ahead. There is also the proposal in the revised intervention arrangements, on which the Commission has not yet fully elaborated but which could apply to a restricted group of classes of carcases, which are described in accordance with the EC carcase classification grid, especially if the classes prescribed are predominantly continental in type. All of those things would tend to act against Northern Ireland's agriculture, which is not in a happy state.
This afternoon the Secretary of the Ulster Farmers Union issued a statement in which he said:
if the levels of inputs and outputs remain the same there will be a nil net income from the present proposals, price adjustments, green pound and the CAP reform.
That is a serious statement. The milk sector has known prosperity but great pressure will now be put on it. The choice of 1981 as the year on which to calculate the supplementary levy on milk will be disastrous for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Hammersmith might say that that is what they are shouting about in Dublin. Of course they are. People are shouting about it elsewhere in

the Community. Selection of 1981 as a base year would be disastrous for Northern Ireland dairy men. It would mean that, out of total receipts of £189 million, the dairy industry would lose £25 million. I say without apology that if the Government of the Republic of Ireland are excluded from proposals on milk and do not keep to that base year, we in Northern Ireland are entitled to the same consideration.

Mr. Hume: Hear, hear.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman's support on that issue. It will not be Dublin that delivers the goods. The people in Dublin are interested in themselves, Sinn Fein—"We, ourselves, alone." We are interested in getting the best possible deal for the farmers of Northern Ireland.
I wonder what the Government will do about the milk issue. I trust that some of the recommendations that the agriculture committees made will be studied and accepted.
It is important to highlight Northern Ireland's fishing industry. It is an important part of agriculture. Those of us who have some knowledge of it know that boats are being sold and that the size of the fleet is being depleted. We also know that some people carry on for the simple reason that there is no alternative employment. The same is true for other sectors of agriculture. There are people who would be out of agriculture if they could get another job. As the Pigs Marketing Board said recently, they will hold on to the end and "will" stay to "the death".
The Minister should be aware that the fishing industry in Northern Ireland is in crisis. All of its representative bodies say the same thing. They gave evidence a few days ago to the Northern Ireland Assembly's agriculture committee. The Minister must take a hard look at Northern Ireland's agriculture. Although we are grateful for all that has been done for it and for all that the farmers have done for themselves, today we stand at a crossroads. It should be remembered that the key industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture. If it declines, the whole economy declines with it. I welcome the fact that, even in the amendment, it is recognised at long last that agriculture has a special place in Northern Ireland. I trust that the Government will take immediate steps to safeguard that industry and, especially with regard to intensive farming, to save what is left of that extremely valuable part of the agriculture industry.

Mr. John Hume: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this subject in the House today, and to the party that tabled the motion, although I have to confess to having very little sympathy with the anti-EEC sentiments in the motion. We find ourselves in the company of the party of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Provisional Sinn Fein who are opposed to membership of the European Community -stop the world, they want to get off.
Agriculture is the largest industry in Northern Ireland and therefore must figure largely in any debate on the economy of Northern Ireland. This is becoming increasingly necessary as our manufacturing base continues to contract and it becomes obvious that, for our economic salvation, we shall have to rely increasingly on small and medium-sized industry and, indeed, on our own resources. Agriculture will loom very large in that kind of


development. For that reason, there is an urgent need for a rural development plan in Northern Ireland to be considered, to cover not only the issue of direct aid to farmers and farming, which has already been raised in the debate, but the maintenance and development of the rural community as a community.
It is no longer enough to encourage the drift from the land to the urban areas, which can only swell already swollen dole queues. A positive effort must be made to maintain and develop the rural community by methods such as the development of forestry and afforestation. In such development not only is use made of existing mountain land, providing immediate employment, but the foundations are laid for some powerful industries of the future in afforestation and in tourist-related industries, such as the craft industry, thus making the rural towns centres of small industry.
Mention has been made of the damage that is being done to the intensive sector in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North rightly referred to the existing 10,000 jobs that need protection. It is generally agreed that the cause of the decline in this sector is due to the high price of feeding stuffs and cereals. The suggestion has been made repeatedly to the Minister, and to the Department, that one way of dealing with the decline is to have a permanent intervention store in Northern Ireland. While we welcome the one-off 50,000 tonnes proposed last year, there is no reason why there should not be a permanent intervention store in Northern Ireland. This is a simple way of getting a hidden transport subsidy to offset the heavy transport costs that have to be paid in Northern Ireland because of its geographical position.
The major weakness in the membership of the European Community in relation to Northern Ireland is the absence of a regional policy. Regional funds are not regional policies. There is no regional policy in the European Community, and Governments in the Council of Ministers have prevented the development of regional policies. In considering the changes that have to be made to the common agricultural policy, I believe that greater regionalisation has more to offer Northern Ireland than any other reform, particularly if that is applied to some of the problems currently faced in Northern Ireland.
I am not one of those who think that the common agricultural policy has been an unmitigated disaster. I happen to think that it has been one of the few successful food policies anywhere in the world. I am puzzled by people who complain about food surpluses. Would they prefer scarcity to food surpluses? The achievement of surpluses is proof that the European Community's common agricultural policy has attained self-sufficiency in food production, which is the objective of the policy. Northern Ireland is one of the few areas of the world where that has happened. There is undoubtedly a problem in relation to dairy surpluses, and something will have to be done about that. However, the proposals that are being put forward must be fought tooth and nail in Northern Ireland, because they will be very damaging to our dairy industry.
Northern Ireland's only raw material is grass, and all that we can produce from that grass is milk or beef. If there are to be penalties for over-production of milk in the European Community, those penalties should be placed on regions which, because of climatic conditions that are better than those in Northern Ireland, can turn to many

other products. In Northern Ireland we cannot change from milk or beef. That is what I mean by a greater regionalised approach to the problems; an approach that takes account not only of the specific problems of regions, but of the specific natural resources of the regions.
A major issue in Northern Ireland agriculture for many years has been the extension of the boundaries of less-favoured areas. The absence of such an extension has been a major injustice against those farmers whose lands have been excluded from the schemes for less-favoured areas. Since our entry into the European Community, 75 per cent. of the land of Northern Ireland has met the criteria for inclusion in the less-favoured areas, yet only 45 per cent. has been included in existing schemes.
It was only after a great deal of pressure on an issue in which the farming community and the political community in Northern Ireland were united that Northern Ireland demanded a survey to prove that our allegation was correct. The survey found that our allegation was correct, and recommended a substantial increase in the size of the less-favoured areas. The delay in the implementation of that extended scheme is intolerable. I should like the Minister to confirm to the House that, when the scheme goes through the Council of Ministers, the Government will not be slow in committing their share of the cost of an extension for the less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland.
My final point concerns one of the great problems of farmers today, particularly small farmers, and that is the level of interest rates. In some parts of the European Community farmers have the benefit of rural investment banks and low interest rates. In the Republic, the Agricultural Credit Corporation is used as the agent of the European Investment Bank to provide low-rate loans to farmers. I do not see why something similar cannot be applied in Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Nicholson: The situation in Northern Ireland agriculture has been deteriorating in recent years. No hon. Member who has listened to the debate could doubt that. The two sectors suffering most since United Kingdom entry into the EEC are pigs and poultry. Farmers in Northern Ireland built a thriving intensive industry based on cheap grain imports from north America. The average farm in Northern Ireland is smaller in size than farms in the rest of the United Kingdom. The farms are mainly family farms and, to make their farms viable, farmers expanded in the intensive sectors. Since United Kingdom entry into Europe, the numbers of pigs and poultry kept in Northern Ireland has been halved, with a number of consequences. One consequence is a drift from the land and resultant loss of jobs in ancillary industry. Many farmers have been forced to concentrate mainly on the grass-based sector, specialising in one sector, which they now find threatened by EEC proposals, especially in the milk industry. This has caused grave concern throughout the industry, and with good cause.
As to the problems connected with pigs and poultry, I believe the present crisis in Northern Ireland to be the most serious for many years. The input costs play a major part in this situation. I am reliably informed that it costs £4 per pig more to produce a pork pig in Northern Ireland than it costs on the United Kingdom mainland.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on the decrease in the number of sows in Northern Ireland. Had he been with me at Portadown pig market last Wednesday he would have been amazed, because it was full. The farmers are getting out as quickly as they can because they want to ease their meal bill and salvage something from the serious position. I must tell the Minister that if something is not done quickly in that sector, in six or nine months' time he will have to cite figures to the House that will cause a few red faces on the Government Benches.
Northern Ireland producers carry an intolerable burden, which emanates from Britain's entry into Europe. That deprived Northern Ireland of access to cheap North American grain. Northern Ireland farmers were always able to cope with higher input costs better than other parts of the United Kingdom, but the current difference has become too great a cross to bear, too steep a hill to climb—especially when we read of intervention grain going to other countries. That grain should be used to benefit United Kingdom farmers. The time has come for the Government to stand up for their farmers. They should worry less about what other countries may think of them, because other countries are prepared to protect their farmers at all costs. We need look no further than to the attitude of the French as proof of that.
If Northern Ireland is not to evolve into an agricultural economy based predominantly on grass, some way forward must be found to obtain grain at a more competitive price, and there must also be a more serious study of transport costs. Some form of assistance, especially to the pig industry, would be an unfettered supply of cereal substitutes, especially manioc. The problems in Northern Ireland are not only agricultural but social. Directly and indirectly, agriculture is responsible for 13 per cent. of employment in Northern Ireland, and that must be protected.
The Athens summit failed to reach agreement, which increased the concern and anxiety of the agriculture industry. When the Commission published its price proposals for the 1984–85 marketing year, it allowed only for minor price adjustments, yet the United Kingdom's significant green pound revaluation will sharply reduce support levels. That has been further magnified by the Commission delaying payment on intervention purchases and export restitutions, and the failure of the Council of Ministers to overrule the directives that have held up the hill land compensatory amounts and certain capital grant payments. That has caused serious cash flow difficulties for many farmers, especially hill farmers.
The poultry sector has recently been helped by an improvement in egg prices. That was much needed as the industry had suffered many months of loss of profits. But it still requires many months at current levels to recuperate. Like the pig industry, the poultry sector suffers from high input costs of grain and will require similar help if it is to have any future.
Since United Kingdom entry to the EC, there has been a marked departure from the mixed farming enterprise. More and more farmers have specialised in milk or beef—indeed, they have been encouraged to do so by Government inducements. Many were told that as Northern Ireland could grow grass better and conserve it more efficiently than anywhere else in Europe, we should be prepared to produce more milk and beef. The super levy proposals will have a disastrous effect, especially if they

are introduced on 1981 levels of production. The proposal not to renew the variable premium would set back the beef industry considerably, and would have spin-off effects for milk producers and consumers. I am concerned that many farmers now have all their eggs in one basket, and if that commodity fails they will immediately find themselves in a serious position.
Agriculture in the whole of the United Kingdom faces many difficulties. The future of agriculture in Northern Ireland is made more difficult by its remoteness, and entry into the EC has made that remoteness greater. Decisions that used to be made here are now being made in Brussels. That helps to alienate Northern Ireland farmers. Many of them wonder whether their views are considered at all. EC membership has not been beneficial to Northern Ireland farmers, and more consideration of our remoteness must be given.
The position of the monetary compensatory amounts in Northern Ireland will always be open to abuse while the frontier with the Irish Republic remains open. If the Government are not prepared to control the security of the border in the interests of the citizens, we can expect little control of those determined to abuse the system.
The importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland and its economy cannot be over-stressed. It requires much greater foresight than at present, and a greater awareness of the problems faced in such a peripheral area. I hope that there will be a greater awareness from the Minister that will lead to a strengthened industry.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Agriculture is the most important industry in Northern Ireland, and nowhere is it more important than in my constituency. In production, processing and marketing, agriculture is the largest employer. It is, therefore, vital that the contribution that agriculture, in all its aspects, has made to the economy is not allowed to diminish any further than it has since we entered the EC. That point has been well made by other hon. Members this afternoon.
The steady decline in rural Ulster's main industry is having a devastating effect on the community, where 40 per cent. of males are already unemployed. That was not the case when market forces were allowed to prevail and our farmers built up a thriving intensive livestock industry based on grain purchased openly on the world market. Now the EC-imposed threshold price has decimated that aspect of farming.
One can continuously quote figures to prove that point. For example, about 10 years ago there were more than 1 million pigs in Northern Ireland, but there are now only 600,000. The number of farmers employed in pig production has dropped from 17,500 in 1972 to fewer than 6,000 in 1982. The reduction in pig production has had a devastating effect on marketing, as evidenced in the Unipork factory in Enniskillen. When the new factory killing line is established in Cookstown, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), a considerable number of pigs will be diverted from Enniskillen to sustain the new plant. The danger is that the hinterland of the Enniskillen factory will not be able to supply the factory with a sufficient number of pigs. The farmers in Fermanagh are generally small producers, and they are being driven out of work by EC policy. The Enniskillen factory employs 400 to 500 men. It is efficiently run and supplies shops and supermarkets


all over the British Isles with a variety of products. The future of the factory is at stake, as are the jobs of the employees.
Farmers face other problems, too, in connection with marketing. Milk producers are concerned about the future because of the talk of the imposition of super levies and quotas and suggestions that the base year for any quota system should be 1981. That would hit milk producers hard, because 1981 was a poor year. The years 1982 and 1983 would have been much more representative.
Since we joined the Common Market, policy on agriculture in Northern Ireland has been subject to fluctuations. The change in capital grant schemes announced on 30 November 1983 will reduce the rate of grants on buildings by 2·5 per cent. and grants on road and drainage by 10 per cent. That is most unwelcome. Furthermore, when announcing that change, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland said that the rate of grants under the agricultural development programme—a scheme for the benefit of farmers in the less favoured areas—would remain unchanged for the time being. I hope that the Government will not find it necessary to reduce the rate of grants under that scheme. That is an example of the uncertainty that our farmers have to face all the time.
A problem of widespread concern, affecting all schemes, is delay in the issue of grant payments. It seems to be caused by confusion between our own Department of Agriculture, the Treasury and the EC directives. It is claimed that in normal circumstances a delay of six months is the minimum that one should expect. This delay not only reduces the rate at which further development can take place, but means that the farming community has to pay heavy bank interest. There are various explanations for the delays, one being the complexity of the schemes and the difficulties involved in their administration. A farmer may benefit under a variety of schemes, and it is necessary for the Department of Agriculture to check and cross-reference all schemes before payments are made to ascertain that the two-year expenditure limits and six-year farm business limits are not being exceeded. There is an urgent need for simplification of the rules governing the schemes to make possible speedier administration.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the matter was raised in December we received some assurances of a speeding-up in payment of grants approved and due. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's experience is the same as mine, but in my constituency there has been no improvement whatsoever, and I am still forwarding a steady stream of complaints to the Minister as I was six months ago.

Mr. Maginnis: Sadly, I have to concur with my right hon. Friend.
The continuity so necessary in an industry which requires high investment has been missing, as the EC agricultural policy stumbles from crisis to crisis with little appreciation of Northern Ireland's capabilities or problems. When I remember the stability and confidence that pervaded farming in Northern Ireland before the curse —if I may so describe it—of EC membership imposed the uncertainty that permeates the system today, I fail to understand why we continue to accept diktats which enforce higher production costs so that France and other

European countries can compete by producing food that is inferior in quality and in hygiene and originates in areas where animal disease which we eradicted years ago is still endemic.
I hope that the Minister responsible will take appropriate action to remove the serious administrative difficulties. I refer in particular to EC money for funding a Blackwater drainage scheme which would benefit farmers in my constituency. For some reason, when the Department decided to pursue this scheme, it turned to London for a consultant to deal with the matter. We do not mind competition, but we have adequate and able consultants in Northern Ireland—consultants who, if asked to draw up a list of firms to tender for the scheme, would not have left out the name of the largest earth-moving firm in Northern Ireland, which is based in my constituency, although two firms from the mainland and one from Eire were included.
When I inquired about the omission, I was given all sorts of reasons. I knocked down the reasons one by one. The firm has plant worth £3 million and has completed a £4 million scheme on the Naas bypass in the past year. Such a firm is eligible to tender for the Blackwater drainage scheme. Lord Mansfied was unable to give me a satisfactory explanation, and so was the Secretary of State. The Northern Ireland Office told me that the firm might not be up to the job financially. That is a ridiculous allegation to make against a firm which has honoured every contract it has been given over the years and is able, without recourse to an insurance firm, to get a bond for £600,000 from the bank with which it deals. If there is such ineptitude in the awarding of agricultural contracts, what confidence can we have—right across the board—that we are dealing with people who understand Northern Ireland?

Mr. Roy Beggs: Where such a situation has arisen over the obtaining of a tender and awarding of a contract, surely the only honourable thing to do would be to add to the list the name of the company that has been disfavoured or, if that is not acceptable, to go through a fresh tendering procedure.

Mr. Maginnis: I agree. If there was any real feeling for the plight of the unemployed in my constitueny, where there is 40 per cent. male unemployment among men who are familiar with agriculture, a different approach would be taken to the problem.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I have listened with interest since the beginning of the debate to my colleagues on both sides of the House. They have made a plea on behalf of agriculture in Northern Ireland to the Minister. I suggest to the Minister that he heeds what hon. Members have said and goes to Brussels when Northern Ireland issues are discussed. The same is true of Wales and Scotland. Secretaries of State never attend meetings in Brussels, and they are to blame, in my view, for what happens. They are responsible for agriculture in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will heed what has been said tonight.
I have pressed agricultural matters in the House, and perhaps the Minister will take note of what I have to say, from this side of the water. Many years ago we had a


deficiency payments scheme for pigs. It worked well. I have pressed successive Governments to introduce a scheme for pig producers similar to that which we have for sheep producers in Northern Ireland and this country. It would benefit everyone.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) spoke about the capital grant, and the credit system that now operates within the EEC. It is well known in Brussels that, if farmers in Northern Ireland or any other part of Great Britain could have the option of a capital grant scheme or cheap credit, many small farmers in Northern Ireland would prefer to have cheap credit facilities for a period until they had established themselves. Our counterparts in Europe are willing for us to have that, and I hope that the Minister will listen to our sentiments.
After listening to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have no choice but to support the motion in the Lobby.

Mr. Butler: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly I shall not have an opportunity to answer every point. As usual, I shall try to do so as appropriately as I can through correspondence.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on his maiden speech. I have seen the slightly unkind comments in the press, and as this appears to be his third maiden speech he can now forsake the wooden spoon for the triple crown. He spoke with considerable authority and it was only to my annoyance that I was unable to intervene. Another time will come when, perhaps, I will be able to do so. I want to deal with two small but relevant points. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised the subject of the selection of contractors for the Blackwater scheme and there was plainly some support for what he was saying. As far as I am aware, the procedures in that case have been properly followed, but I will draw the attention of my noble Friend Lord Mansfield and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Gentleman's words and the expressions of sympathy for his view that came from other hon. Members.
I appreciate the problem associated with grants. It is a matter of cash flow for the farmers. We are talking only about administrative problems that we have experienced in Northern Ireland. I am told that additional staff have been allocated and that overtime is being worked. It is hoped to reduce the time taken to process the claims shortly. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement about EEC grants on Thursday, and I need not add anything.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) had his little bit of a legpull about monetarism. He then went on to sing the praises of a united Ireland. I do not believe that that is relevant to this debate. The example of agriculture within the Republic of Ireland at present is not one upon which I would necessarily wish to base the future of agriculture elsewhere.
It is also a matter of fact that the major increases in prosperity in agriculture in the Republic as a result of entry into the Common Market came about largely because of the smallness of the base, and the industry's relative inefficiency, particularly in the dairy sector, where milk productivity was half of what it was in the North at the time.
The hon. Member referred also to the green pound and the detrimental effect that that had on agriculture during a certain period in the 1970s. As I recollect it, and I hope that I am not wrong, it was his Government's deliberate policy not to revalue the green pound that had a serious impact on farmers' income at that time. The benefit to agriculture then might well have been improved if his Government had not taken that line.
The original motion, as I said earlier, criticised United Kingdom agriculture policies and their effect on Northern Ireland, and the impact of Common Market membership on Northern Ireland agriculture. Frankly, despite the number of voices that have been raised in support of the motion, I do not find the case made out that the trouble stemmed from joining the EEC.
We can argue facts and figures across the Floor, as we did, and, if I may say it immodestly, I believe that my facts and figures were better and more persuasive than those of some of my opponents. The serious point, I believe, that is acknowledged on both sides of the House by anyone who knows anything about agriculture in Northern Ireland is that agriculture is too concentrated and based on grassland production. It must be a matter of fact that a decline in the intensive sector brings about a greater concentration, as the Economic Council report made clear. We must see how we can reverse that trend. The intensive areas were mentioned liberally and frequently by many speakers. I noticed, however, the absense of reference to the poultrymeat sector.
If one takes the poultrymeat sector into account, one sees that the number of chickens for poultrymeat and egg laying is greater than it was in 1965, not less. There is a better prospect for the intensive sector there. A number of useful ideas were mentioned. The Government would wish to see cereal prices moving nearer to world prices. That must have an impact. I cannot promise a full-time store for intervention grain, but we shall use every opportunity to move intervention grain to the Province, as we have done in the past.
One of the best prospects to help the intensive sector and the dairy, beef and sheep sectors is the excellent way in which the processing side is developing. Employment is increasing, even in pig processing, the hardest hit sector in Northern Ireland. It has increased by about 10 per cent. if one adds beef and lamb slaughtering and processing. Markets within the Common Market, especially for beef and lamb, are opening up and that is yet another benefit.
The right hon. Member for Strangford properly drew attention to the importance of forestry. There, thanks to about £5 million a year that is going into that industry, the output of Northern Ireland forests is increasing substantially.
Although I belive that the anxieties expressed about Northern Ireland agriculture are real, and that the industry's problems will continue, I do not believe that the position is as gloomy as some speakers made out. I do not attribute the difficulties to membership of the EEC. In fact, I have pointed out the advantages that have been gained. It is essential, and I give this assurance, that the Government should continue to pay special regard to the special needs of the industry in the Province.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 208.

Division No. 152]
[7 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Beggs, Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Beith, A. J.
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Bruce, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Spearing, Nigel


Cartwright, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Freud, Clement
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Howells, Geraint
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kennedy, Charles
Wainwright, R.


McCrea, Rev William
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


McCusker, Harold
Wallace, James


Maclennan, Robert



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. William Ross and


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Clifford Forsythe.


Nicholson, J.





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Ground, Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Grylls, Michael


Amess, David
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Ashby, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hanley, Jeremy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter
Harris, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harvey, Robert


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayes, J.


Browne, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayward, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Forth, Eric
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fox, Marcus
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Knowles, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Knox, David


Fry, Peter
Latham, Michael


Gale, Roger
Lawler, Geoffrey


Galley, Roy
Lawrence, Ivan


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lightbown, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lilley, Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Gorst, John
Luce, Richard


Gow, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil


Gregory, Conal
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)





Maclean, David John.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Major, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malins, Humfrey
Silvester, Fred


Malone, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marland, Paul
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marlow, Antony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Merchant, Piers
Spencer, D.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Terlezki, Stefan


Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Normanton, Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Osborn, Sir John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Waddington, David


Parris, Matthew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Porter, Barry
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Powley, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wheeler, John


Raffan, Keith
Whitfield, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Ian Lang and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy and that there have been advantages as well as disadvantages to Northern Ireland agriculture as a result of European Community membership; welcomes the special provision of aid to ameliorate that industry's special disadvantages; and calls on the Government to continue to recognise the special problems of Northern Ireland agriculture.

Dartford Tunnel Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Roger Moate: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Those of us who in 1971 served on the interminably long Committee stage of what is now the Local Government Act must feel that our misdeeds will haunt us for ever. Were it not for that legislation we should not today be faced with the Dartford Tunnel Bill. The problem is technical. We are being asked to renew existing powers because of that Act's provisions. The House is not asked to consider significant new proposals or new policies. We are asked by the Kent and Essex county councils for powers to continue to operate and maintain the twin Dartford tunnels and to collect tolls as hitherto.
Although we are discussing only a renewal of powers, hon. Members are given the opportunity to raise matters of considerable principle and of national policy. I understand why some of my hon. Friends and the petitioners—notably the local authorities and motoring organizations—will seize the opportunity to register their views on a matter of importance to many people. However, I hope that, following the debate, the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, both on the merits of the case—which I believe to be strong—and because of the grave consequences for Kent and Essex if the Bill does not succeed. I shall do my best to answer detailed questions later, but I do not claim an omniscience about the details of this 49-page Bill or about the tunnel management.
Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the promoters' statement and know something of the history of the tunnels and of the legislation. This is the eighth Dartford Tunnel Bill. The first Dartford Tunnel Act was passed in 1930, but the first tunnel did not open until 1963. That tunnel was so successful that Parliament, in the Dartford Tunnel Act 1967, authorised the construction of a second tunnel. That Act also provided for the whole of the cost of the second tunnel to be defrayed out of toll income. The tolls in 1963 were set at 2s 6d. They are now 60p which is considerably less than they would be if the ordinary rules of indexing for inflation had been allowed to operate. If those rules had operated, the toll would now be 79p or 80p.
It is important to note the date of the Act which we are being asked to renew. It is 1967. That was when a Labour Government were in power. I hope that tonight's debate will not be partisan, but we must remember that previous legislation of this kind was supported by different Governments of different political complexions. I concede that there are plenty of valid and logical arguments on both sides about tolls for estuarial crossings, but we are entitled to remember the record of previous Labour Governments in relation to other legislation. I refer, for example, to the Tyne tunnel legislation which was re-enacted in 1976, the Tamar bridge legislation of 1977 and the Mersey tunnel legislation which was deposited in 1978. Labour Members must understand that the application of estuarial crossing tolls has been supported by both sides of the House.
I am ready to accept that when in Opposition parties may change policy. That is often done. All that I ask of Opposition Members is that, when considering the consequences for our county councils, please let us not have a U-turn in the Dartford tunnel.
I shall state what I understand to be national policy which established the Dartford tunnel in its present position. I understand that the Government's view is that such expensive crossings which provide attractive alternative routes for travellers and opportunities for journeys which otherwise might be uneconomic should be paid for by the users rather than by the taxpayers. I understand that it has been the policy of successive Governments that tolls should be charged on estuarial crossings which provide exceptional benefits to users.
We must understand the context of that national policy because I believe that in all respects the Dartford tunnels meet the criteria. Having understood the national policy and the existence of the tunnels as toll crossings, it is right to point out that the Kent county council and, I suspect, the Essex county council would be more than pleased if the Secretary of State overturned that national policy and took over the tunnels and all the debts. Even if the Secretary of State were to take over all the responsibilities of running and maintaining the tunnels, tolls would not necessarily cease. The Government might well pursue the same policy as that which applies on the Severn crossing, for example, and toll them in the same way.
It is right to record that no one in either of the counties is enthusiastic about carrying these responsibilities. Why should they be? No motorists are enthusiastic about tolls. Why should they be? That is to state the obvious. Nobody wants to pay tolls, any more than they want to pay taxes. That is not the practical question which we are called upon to consider. We have to be concerned, as have successive Governments, with the practical question of how best to finance these outstandingly expensive estuarial crossings.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: One of the problems for a number of hon. Members is that many of my hon. Friend's constituents coming from London can save half an hour or an hour on a journey by avoiding traffic jams on the Rochester way in my constituency since the Government have rightly allowed the GLC to build the relief road. The same applies to people going round what will be the M25. They will save only about half an hour's journey if they use the Dartford tunnel rather than coming in on the A2 using the Blackwall tunnel and going back out to Essex.

Mr. Moate: I fully understand my hon. Friend's argument. It has been deployed extensively and is a legitimate argument to explore, but I do not believe that anybody would divert for a half-hour journey, especially into congested conditions with the consequent petrol cost and agony of driving in heavy traffic, to avoid a toll of 60p.

Sir Bernard Braine: I know well the road system referred to by my hon. Friend. From experience I would have thought, especially in the conditions of congestion which one encounters in the Greater London area, that the delay would be considerably more than half an hour.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that anybody who were to divert from the Dartfort tunnel because of the toll and enter London traffic would spend much more than half an hour, and very much more on petrol than he would save on the toll, by not going through the Dartford tunnel.
I fully understand the arguments about this matter, which causes anxiety to all those concerned with London


traffic, but, frankly, I have seen no credible evidence—I have read much of the evidence that has been submitted—to suggest that a large volume of traffic would be diverted because of the toll. Experience of tolls shows that when they have risen there has been almost no effect upon traffic flow. Even if the toll were eliminated, I suspect that it would make almost no difference to the volume of traffic in the Dartford tunnel. All hon. Members can speak subjectively as motorists, and I believe that the convenience of that and other crossings is so great to the motorist that he is prepared to pay reasonable tolls to utilise them.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to congestion which, as a frequent user of the A13, I experience when I travel to and from my constituency. However, to support the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the degree of congestion depends on the time of day. After the evening rush hour has subsided, if one wished to go into London through the Blackwall tunnel and out on the A13, one would encounter very little traffic. Drivers of heavy vehicles might consider making that detour to avoid the tunnel, and could do so providing they were travelling down the A13 to Essex after about 7 o'clock in the evening. There are times during the day when traffic is light on that road.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Lady is right that there are times during the day when the general figures for the extra cost do not apply, and when the deviation would be less time-consuming. However, it would be a most uneconomic detour in terms of fuel. If a heavy vehicle were to make the complete detour of about 15 miles each way, the additional cost would be more than £10 per heavy lorry. That is £10 for time and fuel consumed, which is a considerable additional cost. Without going into all the massive detailed evidence, I suggest that the vast majority of drivers of private cars and heavy lorries will always find it much cheaper to use the tunnel than to divert back into London. That is why we have those crossings in the first place. They are attractive to the motorist and confer benefit on him. The Dartford tunnel confers exceptional benefit on the motorist.

Mr. Barry Porter: I agree that the crossing confers benefit on motorists, but not only local motorists and commuters. It also benefits motorists from all parts of the country who must use it.

Mr. Moate: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer that point later. It is one of the key arguments in the matter. The more one examines such arguments and all the estuarial crossings, the harder it is to find a clear and logical pattern that applies throughout the country. However, with the Dartford tunnel we have found a practical answer that works. We cannot consider now whether it works well in other areas or whether we should apply tolls on other crossings. Although my hon. Friend may argue his case for other areas, I urge him to accept that the Dartford tunnel is beginning to work well.
It would be ironic—I hope that it is a hypothetical proposition—if, when the finances of the tunnel appear to be looking good, we should change the scenario and

deny to the county councils the powers that they seek. If it is not too much of a pun, I could say that, financially, we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel.
The statement from the promoters states clearly that
Toll levels are limited by the Act of 1967, and must be no more than is sufficient to allow over a period of time for the repayment with interest of loans made for the construction of the tunnel and the maintenance and running costs. Under the Act of 1967, and under the Bill, the power to charge tolls would cease when the capital debt has been paid off and maintenance and reserve funds have been established.
It is impossible to be precise about when that will happen, but we must believe the statement that all hon. Members have received from the promoters, which states:
On present estimates it is predicted that tolls will cease to be chargeable under the Bill early in the next century having regard to the predicted increase in the flow of traffic through the tunnel.
There was evidence given in another place to suggest that we could reach that position even earlier. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) might laugh, because it sounds like a long time ahead. However, in the context of general Government finance, a period of about 16 years during which time a debt of £68 million is expected to be extinguished is not a long time. In the context of financing such an operation, it is a reasonable period that justifies the philosophy of charging tolls and allowing the user of such an exceptionally expensive crossing to bear the cost of doing so.

Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman talked about early next century, but that will be too late for those of my constituents who now spend £6 a week in tolls alone while travelling to and from work. They will either be happily retired, or may even have gone to the other place, before the debt for the Dartford tunnel is paid off.

Mr. Moate: When the hon. Lady refers to the other place, I presume that she means not the other Chamber but some other destination. Everyone becomes impatient with such forecasts, but we must relate the matter to local government finance generally. I still say that if we can finance trans-estuarial crossings—crossings that might not otherwise be in the Government programme—on such forecasts, that justifies the entire policy. Had we not built the Dartford tunnel on the basis of toll revenue, it would not exist today. That was the basis on which it was financed and on which powers were originally given to the councils, and it is the basis on which we seek renewal of those powers.
The House should consider the problems that would arise if the Bill were not renewed. I understand that many hon. Members hope that, if the Bill is not renewed, the Government will take responsibility for the tunnel and that all our problems will be over. However, it is not that simple. If the Bill does not succeed and the councils lose their toll-raising powers, the first and most likely consequence would that the burden of paying for the tunnel would fall upon the ratepayers of Kent and Essex. I have seen forecasts of the rate consequences, and I do not believe that they have been up-dated for this year's calculations. Having made that proviso, I offer them to the House: the tunnel would cost Essex ratepayers 3·8p in the pound and Kent ratepayers 8·6p in the pound. Why should the ratepayers of Kent and Essex bear the burden of this tunnel when that tunnel was built in the expectation that it would be paid for by the users?

Mr. John Prescott: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the Humberside precept for rates for the financing of that debt will be about 50p?

Mr. Moate: I am not sure of the hon. Gentleman's point. He may be supporting my case that it would not be an acceptable proposition. The hon. Gentleman is supporting the case that we do not wish to transfer this burden to the ratepayers.

Sir Bernard Braine: Not even at 8p?

Mr. Moate: Certainly not at 8p. I shall not go into whether it was right to have a Humber bridge built at three times the debt of this project because that is a different argument.
The next alternative is that the Government should take over the £68 million debt and that it should be borne by the general taxpayer who bears the major burden of road construction. The cost of building an ordinary motorway is perhaps £2 million a mile. We are talking about a tunnel of a little under a mile to be built at £40 million a mile. We are entitled to say that that is an exceptional cost, that a large proportion of the benefit is obtained by the local users and that some other way should be found of financing that proposition. I do not believe that we are justified in placing the cost on the general taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom.
If the Government were suddenly faced with that £68 million debt, presumably the Department of Transport would have to carry the cost from its budget, and so £68 million would have to be found from the general roads programme. I do not believe that the Department of Transport could suddenly take over a £68 million debt without having to find cuts in the programme to match it. That would mean that we would perhaps lose the M20 extension, for which we have been fighting for so long, and many other cherished and desirable road schemes for which hon. Members have been clamouring. I should have thought that the consequences would be unacceptable to all involved and that there would be no case for not continuing to use a revenue-raising method that is working quite effectively.
I put it to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that if the only way in which we can get the second Severn crossing—which I know many people feel is urgently necessary—is is by a toll-based financing operation, surely we would all want it. If the only way to get a new Dartford tunnel would be by applying tolls, even those motorists who do not like paying tolls would welcome that proposition. That takes us to the heart of the matter. The only way in which we will get this type of crossing, as successive Governments have acknowledged, outside the broad roads programme is to have tolls.

Mr. Porter: If it is true that such projects will be financed by tolls, how does my hon. Friend explain the tunnel at Conwy on the A55?

Mr. Moate: I shall resist the temptation to consider all the other crossings, because, as I said earlier, there are anomalies and this is not a satisfactorily clear and logical picture. Successive Governments have applied a policy which they would have described as flexible, but I believe that that policy is essentially practical and that, where local circumstances and the practicalities allow it, tolls have

been charged. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, will say that in each case there is a consistent argument that applies tolls in some cases and not in others and each area must argue its case. In this case it works, and that is the best possible reason for continuing the present system.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is it not time that he got down to the basic question which is that this year motorists have contributed £10,000 million to the Exchequer and only a quarter of that amount is spent on road improvement? In other words, three quarters of that huge amount goes towards general Exchequer expenditure. The hon. Gentleman, because of an anomaly on the estuarial crossing, is putting the motorist in the role of supplicant, where he is paying hand over fist.

Mr. Moate: I do not believe that that is the basic question. If it is, it is such a hairy old question that I thought we had stopped arguing it. I suggest that we cannot argue that revenue raised from the motorist should always be spent on roads. We do not adopt that type of financial policy of hypothecated revenue—I believe that is the right phrase. It does not work, no Government have ever used it and no Government can. If the same logic were applied to revenue from excise duties on whisky, the tax raised would be spent for the benefit of the whisky drinker, and that might be popular. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we know that petrol duties and the like are a way of raising revenue, just as are income tax, value added tax and any other source of revenue. We should resist the temptation always to relate revenue raising to expenditure on roads.
Expenditure on roads is at a high level and is increasing substantially. We do not need to be ashamed of the money generally being spent on the roads programme. How can we finance the additional requirements for the immensely expensive crossings—I refer again to the Severn estuary—at the expense of the road programme? Should we find additional ways of raising revenue on terms similar to those that we are discussing?
The Bill has excited more interest than it might otherwise have done because of the virtual completion of the M25. That project has shown up starkly the presence of one toll on perhaps the most exciting road project this country has ever conceived. The Dartford tunnel is the one point where tolls will be raised on this superb new orbital road. I do not believe that that is an argument for getting rid of the tunnel. It would be an argument if there were major and unacceptable delays caused by the raising of tolls, but the collection of tolls once is not an argument of great principle. I believe that this road will cost £825 million and will be of immense benefit to London and the whole country, and especially the south-east. I do not think it unreasonable that a fairly modest toll should be charged at one point on that motorway.
One may pursue the point that as a matter of fact there will always be a delay when collecting a toll. There will be a minor delay, but I have never heard it argued on the major highway networks on the continent that the tolls charged are uneconomic or in some way undermine the impressive nature of the autoroutes and major motorways. If a delay is not caused on the continent, why should we assume that there will be a delay here?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that in France there is considerable controversy about the tolls on the motorways and, in fact, it has been found that most of the money raised by tolls goes to financing the operation of the tolls.

Mr. Moate: I understand that the system works quite effectively in financing many of those roads. If the hon. Gentleman can show me where tolls on the French autoroutes are being scrapped, I believe that he would have a case.

Mr. Prescott: So many jobs are in it.

Mr. Moate: I see. Generally speaking, in countries where tolls are charged they are not seen as a major obstacle to the strategic network—indeed, if they cannot be applied there, they cannot be applied anywhere.
Are delays caused by the Dartford tunnel? As hon. Members with adjoining constituencies may wish to point out, there have been delays, but those delays were mainly caused by construction work. I understand that a 100 per cent. Government grant has now been earmarked for what is romantically but unsuitably called the "toll plaza" and that once the number of toll booths is increased and the approach roads completed there should be no delay at the point of collection other than the ordinary delay for collection of the toll itself.
There will be occasions on which motorists will be frustrated and irritated by the formation of queues at the toll booths. Clearly that must be considered in Committee, but I understand that the only constraint will in fact be that a three-lane motorway will be going into a two-lane tunnel. To avoid congestion in the tunnel, delays will sometimes be caused deliberately at the toll booths in the interests of everyone's safety. As I believe my hon. Friend the Minister of State recorded in Hansard recently, the assumption is that delays caused by the collection of tolls will be eliminated save for the brief moment of payment. Delays would certainly be unacceptable and it is right to insist that there should be none. We therefore welcome the Government's grant for the expansion of the toll plaza.
I think that I have dealt with the major objection about diversion of traffic into the London scene, which I do not believe is a major difficulty.
At other stages of the Bill and outside Parliament there has been some discussion about the east London river crossing. If and when that crossing is built and the decision is taken whether it should be tolled or toll free, that will be the time to consider the other river crossings if that proves necessary. At this stage, however, I believe that we should proceed on the realistic, practical basis of the renewal of these powers without looking too speculatively into the future.
On the rights of appeal against toll increases, the law at present provides that anyone objecting to proposals for the revision of tolls may require the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry. Clause 23 would make that a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State. The absolute right for objectors to demand an inquiry will be removed. There is little doubt that the previous procedure was wrong and unworkable. In one case that was quoted an inquiry was ordered—the Secretary of State having no discretion in the matter—and the objector who had caused it to be held failed to appear at the proceedings. The result was eight months delay and a very substantial loss of revenue. That increase was merely to cover inflation. The Bill

provides that the holding of an inquiry should be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, but an amendment was accepted in another place requiring the promoters to consult Thurrock and Dartford borough councils. I believe that that has now produced an arrangement satisfactory to all parties.
In conclusion, national policy is flexible and holes can be picked in it, but in the context of the Dartford tunnel the situation works well. The tunnel has been a great success and a great tribute to Kent and Essex county councils. We can at last look forward to a time when the debts will be cleared. That may be a long way ahead, but the system is working well. It would be ironic indeed if we now deprived those councils of the power to operate in the way that they have operated so successfully until now. I submit that it is right to grant the promoters, Kent and Essex county councils, the powers sought in the Bill.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The pleasing manner in which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) introduced the Second Reading of the Bill tempts me to describe him as the Dartford tunnel warbler, but I am not sure that the arguments that he so ably deployed are as strong as he suggested.
Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to the complete change in the function of the tunnel due to the building of the M25. Unquestionably, when the tunnel was first opened in 1963 its purpose was predominantly — I stress that word — to enable the inhabitants of Essex to go to Kent and the inhabitants of Kent to visit Essex. The construction of the M25 completely changes that, making the tunnel a national asset rather than one shared by those two counties.
I appreciate the logic behind the Bill in that it is a repetition of the previous legislation, but when the tunnel was first opened its function was of direct interest primarily to the two counties concerned, which is presumably why they originally prompted it. Now, however, the Government are rightly pressing ahead with the construction of the M25 right round London. That will be a magnificent asset both to London and to the country at large. Unquestionably, the use that will be made of the M25 and of the Dartford tunnel will be national rather than regional or local.
The hon. Member for Faversham rightly referred to the arguments for and against tolls and I accept his comment that there is no apparent logic or hard and fast rule of Government policy on which to base a decision. Perhaps today's debate is a good opportunity to suggest one. If the tunnel is primarily of use locally there may be an argument for part of the cost to be borne on the rates or through a toll or for some system covering both forms of income. If it is a national asset, however, as it is bound to become, I cannot see any sensible argument for a toll. The purpose of a toll is so that those who predominantly use the tunnel and thus stand to benefit from it should pay for it. If it is a national asset, however—like the M25 or any other motorway or main road in the country—it must make reasonable sense for the nation as a whole to pay for it.
In that way, therefore, I dispose of the argument that there is any logical case for a toll once the M25 is complete, because that stretch of the road which passes under the estuary of the river Thames will be of enormous value to people—to private drivers, firms which send lorries and so on to and from the north, Wales, Scotland


and all over the country — and will be an asset to continental firms which bring their merchandise in through one of the channel ports.
It must be seen as a national asset, but it is also an enormous asset to the citizens of London, particularly those who live in my constituency and in my borough. The hon. Member for Faversham said that he had seen no credible evidence to suggest that the existence of a toll, or the queues that might build up on either side, might have a deleterious effect on other parts of London and might throw traffic on to London's roads.
I understand that some work was done in 1975 by an inquiry into the possible results of an increase in tunnel tolls. That work showed that the likely transfer, as a result of increased tolls, of existing traffic using the tunnel on to other river crossings could be substantial and that the effect on some roads could be significant, for instance, on high street north in Newham, on Rochester way in Greenwich and on the East India Dock road in Tower Hamlets.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is not at present in his place, referred to the Rochester way, which runs through his constituency and mine. Anybody who travels down the A2-M2 knows that at present the Rochester way is a considerable congestion point, and it is likely to remain so until the relief road is built about two years hence. Therefore, any additional traffic passing through our two constituencies would create immense problems. There are frequent blockages in the Blackwall tunnel and anyone who tries to reach outer London through Leyton and Leytonstone knows the difficulties in that area.

Mr. Tim Brinton: The hon. Gentleman referred to some work that had been done on what people's attitude might be if the tolls on the Dartford tunnel were raised. If I were approached by a pollster and told that tolls might be rising and asked what I would do about it, it would be like asking me if I were against sin. I would obviously try to pretend that if the tolls were increased I should divert so as to avoid paying the extra. What was the size of the sample and what sort of questions were asked in the survey to which the hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Barnett: I cannot give that information. I have not studied that piece of work in detail and I referred to it only because the hon. Member for Faversham suggested that no work had pointed to that possibility. Indeed, I believe that we in east London have every reason to fear the possibility of delays at the Dartford tunnel, which might tempt people to move away. The possibility of tolls is also a reason which, curiously, dissuades people from taking a particular route. Admittedly, in a couple of years' time, the Rochester way relief road will, I hope, be open; I am not sure whether it will be open that soon, but we are looking forward to that possibility. It is right to point out some of the dangers that would arise if the M25 were completed and there were still tolls at the Dartford tunnel.
The hon. Member for Faversham said that the Government had generously offered £15 million so that a plaza could be laid out at each side of the tunnel to enable the money to be collected. We need to question the Government about that because I understand that the amount owing on the tunnel at present is £62 million, so that that £15 million could pay off one quarter of the sum owing.

Mr. Moate: I believe that the figure for the toll booths in terms of Government grant is £3·5 million.

Mr. Barnett: Then I was misinformed; I was told that it was a good deal more than that. Nevertheless, it seems that any work done on the toll points, and the wages that would have to be paid to those operating them, would all involve costs, so we should be told what costs are likely to continue to be involved in the collection of money, apart from the capital cost, which I understand the Government have made available so that toll booths and a plaza may be laid out.
Another point needs to be put forward, particularly on behalf of east London. The hon. Member for Faversham fairly pointed out that the rest of the M25 would be toll-free. The Government have allowed the link between Staines and Egham to be toll-free on the west side of London but, curiously, have not seen fit to take over responsibility for the link at Dartford. That is unfortunate because anyone who knows anything about London knows that there is a considerable contrast between standards of wealth and deprivation in west and east London. Some of the most deprived boroughs in the Greater London area are on the east, rather than on the west, side, and I need only name Islington, Hackney, Southwark and the other dockland boroughs to illustrate the point. Therefore, it seems unfortunate that the Government should have agreed to the financing of a free road on the west side of the M25 but should have accepted no responsibility for the Dartford crossing.
In addition, the hon. Member for Faversham mentioned the proposed east London river crossing. I oppose that, and the borough in which my constituency is situated also opposes that development. However, I understand that if it were to take place, the idea would be not to have a toll on that road—it would be interesting to know what arguments there might be for that—while retaining a toll on the Dartford crossing.
Those are serious arguments against the continuation of tolls at the Dartford tunnel. I emphasise that this is now a national asset; it is transformed into a national asset by the construction of the M25. There can be no argument about the national recognition of the need for the M25, for the sake of London and for the national economy as a whole. For those reasons it is wrong for the Government to expect Kent and Essex to continue the responsibility that they now have for the Dartford tunnel. I should have thought that for that, if for no other reason, we should vote against the Second Reading. That would be a statement by the House that we regard the Dartford tunnel as requiring national, rather than local, financing.

8 pm

Mr. Tim Brinton: I listened closely to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). His final words filled me with considerable consternation on behalf of every ratepayer in Essex and Kent. If the Bill were to be defeated, I do not believe that in the present climate there would be the slightest chance of the Government taking over the Dartford tunnel. The hon. Gentleman has suggested, in effect, that the ratepayers of Kent should pay an extra 8·3p in the pound in two years' time, and that ratepayers in Essex should pay an extra 4p in the pound, to maintain a tunnel which caters for traffic which comes from Scotland or from the other end of the country, from Dover, and travels up and down the country. The traffic is largely national and not local.
I must admit to a considerable feeling of bewilderment. If the Government were prepared to take over the tunnel I should be delighted. As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, the tunnel has lost its local need. It does not provide a service that is confined to those who wish to travel from Kent to Essex and Essex to Kent. The service that it provides is entirely different.
I support the Bill with a somewhat heavy heart, for it is essential to the two counties if the ratepayers are not to be unduly penalised. I am perhaps the only Member in the Chamber who is avowedly and enthusiastically in favour of motorway tolling. I wish that the Government and previous Governments had adopted the practice of France and the United States, so that those who use the generation of super roads could make a contribution to their provision.
The tide is running with that thought in the United Kingdom. Given the complexion of the Government, it seems that they are in favour of those who can afford it making a contribution to the services that they use. The principle extends beyond that into subscription television, for example, which will soon be with us. We shall have broadcasting by satellite and cable television. Why should we not expect the users to contribute something to the arterial roads and in that way enable them to be kept in better condition? In the circumstances that now prevail, it is inevitable that a major part of the road fund will not be spent on roads. If a tolling system were developed and the revenue was spent on the betterment of our road system, many people might be extremely pleased.
It is not impossible to make tolling work. The tunnel under Hong Kong was built at a cost of many millions of dollars and I am told that it was in profit, as a result of tolls, in about 18 months after it was built. The enthusiasm of the Chinese for using new devices and new systems may be greater than ours, but there are opportunities and I hope that ultimately the Government will look towards tolls. I do not believe that that will happen in time to cause the lapsing of the legislation that we are discussing and, therefore, I believe that we must make provision for Kent and Essex to continue to charge tolls.
There has been talk of possible delays, but we shall extend the toll plaza. If hon. Members have used the tolling system on the continent, as I have, they will know that it is rare for there to be more than a few seconds' delay in passing through the toll and that the motorist becomes practised in having his change ready to throw into the basket and pass straight through.
It is estimated that the tunnel will not be paid for until almost the end of the century. It should be underlined that it is the only one in the country for which there is a definite target date for paying off the cost of construction. It is possible that another one will be built and that there will be a third Dartford tunnel, but I served on Kent county council for a few years in the 1970s and I know its members fairly well. As I understand their thinking, I can say that the county council—I cannot speak for Essex—would not accept the idea of facing the debt of a third tunnel. There was a different climate in the 1960s and we are now faced with an entirely different ball game.
I hope that those who disagree with the notion of tolling will recognise the impracticability that would result from defeating the Bill and will not cause a Division to take

place when the Question is put, That the Bill be now read a Second time. We can avoid penalising the Essex and Kent ratepayers by enacting the Bill.

Mr. John Cartwright: I hope that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) will forgive me if I seem somewhat less than enthusiastic about his idea of a patchwork quilt of turnpikes throughout the country. Most of my constituents would take the view that motorists pay enough in taxation as it is without that form of direct taxation on their motoring.

Mr. Prescott: What about social services in Kent?

Mr. Cartwright: I had better not go into that because that would involve straying beyond the bounds of order.
I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) when I say that I was attracted by the reasonable way in which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) presented his case. He clearly knew when there were holes in it, and that was part of the engaging presentation. It is no part of my case to place in the dock the county councils of Kent and Essex. They are the fall guys for the Department of Transport. Those of us who feel strongly about the toll will realise that that is so.
The Government's attitude to tolls has been made clear on a number of occasions. I came across a clear statement made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 10 June 1981 when he was the Secretary of State for Transport. He said that the Government
saw no case for departing from the general principle that tolls should be charged on crossings where exceptional benefits are provided to the users".—[Official Report, 10 June 1981; Vol 6, c. 148.]
It has already been made clear in the debate that that principle does not seem to be carried out to the letter. Relevant examples are the M5 Avonmouth bridge and the river Orwell crossing. I have no doubt that other hon. Members can quote other examples.
It is difficult to decide what constitutes an exceptional benefit. The Severn and Humber bridges provide exceptional, extraordinary and unusual benefits but there are other crossings of the Thames available apart from Dartford that lie within a comparatively short distance. The benefit of the Dartford tunnel is clearly not exceptional. As the hon. Member for Greenwich has said, the tunnel has changed in character considerably since it was opened. I shall quote some of the traffic flows to underline the hon. Gentleman's argument.
In 1964, for example, there was a traffic flow of 4·8 million vehicles a year. By 1982, that had increased to 12·3 million vehicles a year and a daily rate of 34,000 vehicles. In April 1983, when the section of the M25 from the A127 to the M11 was opened, the daily flow increased from 34,000 vehicles in March to 41,000 in May. We all know that there has been a tremendous increase as a result of the opening in January 1984 of the section of the M25 from the M11 to the A10 and the dual carriageway link all the way from the Al and the M1 to the M2, the M20 and the Channel ports. In a written answer on 11 July 1983, the Minister of State said:
When the M25 is complete, traffic flows are currently expected to be between 65,000 and 78,000 vehicles per day." —[Official Report, 11 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 249.]
Those figures must be set against the flows when the tunnel was opened. The contrast communicates effectively the change in character.

Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Gentleman's figures are rather misleading. He referred to the traffic flow in 1964, forgetting that the second tunnel did not come into operation until 1967. The introduction of the second tunnel was bound to make a significant difference. In the past 20 years, the number of vehicles on the roads has increased enormously.

Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, I think that he will also accept that, allowing for the extra traffic generated by the second tunnel, greater car ownership and the greater number of lorries on the road, the tunnel has changed its character, and is an important part of the M25, which provides an attractive orbital route around London. It was constructed to take through traffic away from London, particularly heavy goods traffic. It seems to many of us to be somewhat inconsistent to build what is essentially a bypass and then to maintain a toll on it, which will have some discouraging effects.
I declare a constituency interest because traffic diverted is likely to head for the Blackwall tunnel or the Woolwich ferry. Both crossings are free. I can tell the hon. Member for Faversham that, with the construction of roads such as the Thamesmead spine road and the improvement of the A206, the area is not so congested and it is possible to get a large part of the distance from Dartford to the centre of Woolwich on dual carriageway roads. That will be even easier after the improvement of the A206 has been completed. The traffic might not be moving slowly. It might move fast on its way from Dartford to divert to Woolwich or the Blackwall tunnel. However, there are still problems for my constituents and the residents of Greenwich, whether the traffic is moving rapidly or slowly.
The hon. Gentleman said that there might be a new situation because of the east London river crossing, a proposal that has hung like the sword of Damocles above my constituents for about 17 years. It now looks as if it is a real prospect. As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, we were never told that there would be tolls on the river crossing. It started life as a tunnel and has now been transformed into a bridge, but no one has suggested that tolls be charged. Therefore, there must be a strong possibility that vehicles will be diverted away from Dartford, where tolls are charged, to the east London river crossing, if that is free. That would apply particularly to heavy commercial traffic.
The east London river crossing is not an attractive scheme to my constituents. As the Minister knows, it is strongly opposed in my constituency. That is not surprising. About 260 homes, most of them in my constituency, will be demolished because of it. It will divide established communities in Plumstead and Abbey Wood from each other and go through some pleasant open spaces. Therefore, that is a controversial issue. Many of my constituents feel strongly that the charging of tolls at Dartford inevitably builds up the demand for an additional free crossing at Thamesmead, which the east London river crossing will provide.
As other hon. Members have said, not only the toll costs but the congestion that the charging of tolls might cause might divert traffic from Dartford. We have all heard that the Government are spending an extra £3 million to provide additional toll booths. However, it seems that even the Government accept that there will be

some congestion. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, replying for the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, said:
in the event of congestion occurring there is already in the main building programme for 1986 onwards a major scheme to provide another river crossing in East London at Barking across to Plumstead and the A2".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1983; Vol. 440, c. 614.]
In other words, before we have even had a public inquiry on the east London river crossing, Ministers are quoting it as a means of easing congestion that they foresaw would arise at Dartford. If anyone doubts that there will be congestion, let me draw his attention to the comments of Mr. Desmond Jago, a former general manager of Dartford tunnel, now retired. He wrote to the Royal Automobile Club on 2 January 1984, making some clear comments about the risks of congestion arising at Dartford. He said:
It is my firm conviction that when the toll booths for northbound traffic have been increased to twelve, of which 10 or 11 will be in use at peak periods, the attempt to funnel so many lanes of traffic into two lanes to negotiate the tunnel can only lead to acute congestion that will be further aggravated by the impatience and lack of consideration by some motorists who will attempt to bull-doze their way through. Traffic flow through the tunnel will be further affected adversely by the escorting of dangerous material (eg petrol).
On the basis of his experience, Mr. Jago went on to say:
It has always been my view that traffic approaching the tunnel should be funnelled down to two lanes well before reaching the tunnel portals—at least half a mile away from it, and further than that if practicable. The present intention is quite the reverse, viz. spread the traffic out to twelve lanes and then attempt to narrow it down to two lanes too close to the tunnel portal.
That is a worrying comment, on the basis of the practical experience of a former Dartford tunnel manager. I hope that either the Minister or the hon. Member for Faversham will reply to that point later.
It is not my intention to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. It would be most unfair if the burden of the tunnel were to fall on the ratepayers of either Kent or Essex. I hope that the Committee considering the Bill will look at the possibility of a time limit on the operation of the tolls. If we look at the full cost of the M25, which is about £900 million, none of which is charged to the users, that puts into perspective the cost of abolishing the tolls. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will think again and recognise that the tunnel is an integral part of the M25 and of the trunk road network, and will abolish the tolls.

Sir Bernard Braine: The case for both Kent and Essex county councils was put admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). He was described elegantly by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) as the Dartford tunnel warbler. It will take my hon. Friend a long time to live that one down.

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend is not as rare as that.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend certainly gave a rare performance. He sang so well that my task will be all the easier.
I am glad to say that Essex Members, at least on the Conservative side — I hope that we carry the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) with us—and Kent Members see eye to eye on the necessity for the Bill and its urgency. The hon. Member for Greenwich was


right to speak as he did — so lyrically — about the advantages to our constituencies in Kent and Essex of the M25. Some of us are beginning to see that it will bring considerable benefits to local industry and commerce. We in Essex will be brought an hour or so closer to ports such as Southampton and Dover and we already have a major development at Felixstowe. It is an exciting prospect. The hon. Gentleman was right to mention that. I expect it to lead to a massive development in the next five to 10 years, bringing with it the employment opportunities that we ardently desire for our people.
More important, the M25 will bring great benefits to the rest of the country—the midlands, the north and even Scotland. Exporters, business people and travellers seeking access to the ports in the south-east and links with the continent will find it a great advantage to avoid the congestion and traffic delay of Greater London. I did not agree with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). It is true that traffic patterns change, but my experience over 30 years shows me that any diversion of traffic away from the Dartford tunnel because of tolls would add much more than half an hour to journeys such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned.
The Dartford tunnel is, therefore a crucial link which serves not only Essex and Kent but regions far beyond. Widening the approach roads to the tunnel recently attracted a 100 per cent. grant from the Department to eliminate the delays which we experienced last year. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) was right about that. I had some sympathy for the views on tolls expressed by the hon. Members for Woolwich and for Greenwich. I hope that, for reasons which I shall give, the hon. Member for Greenwich will follow the logic of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Woolwich and not vote against the Bill. After making their protest against tolls—like everyone else, I dislike them, too—I hope that nobody will vote against the Bill. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton), everyone agrees that getting rid of tolls would be a good thing. They are certainly unpopular. I should like them abolished everywhere. However, there is no alternative at present. We must deal with realities. The two county councils have had to operate, as one would expect them to do, within the parameters of national policy. Tolls have been required to facilitate provision of trans-estuarial crossings which provide substantial benefits for users and tolls are required here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham went into the history of the subject. I shall not take up the time of the House by exploring the past. In the present climate I see no prospect of the Government picking up the bill. They could do so only at the expense of the national road programme. I wonder what the effect of that would be on the right hon. and hon. Members who are not here tonight. There would be countless alarms and excursions and delegations to the Minister. We must face circumstances as they are, not as we would like them to be. If the House were to reject this measure, it is the ratepayers of Essex and Kent who would have to pick up the bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham attempted to estimate the effects of meeting the cost of the tunnel without tolls being levied. I understand that evidence given by the treasurer of Kent county council to the House of Lords Select Committee suggested that the extra rate

burden would be about 3·8p for Essex ratepayers and about 8·6p for Kent ratepayers. That would be unfair and inequitable. It would be unfair for people who live at the extremities of the two counties in, say, Clacton at one end and Margate at the other.

Mr. Crouch: And Canterbury.

Sir Bernard Braine: How dare I miss out Canterbury? It would be unfair to people who do not use the tunnel frequently. The unfairness to Essex and Kent would be even greater when one takes into account the use which would be made of the tunnel by people in the outer London boroughs who are close to it, but would not bear any of the burden of cost. I cannot conceive that anyone in his senses would advocate such a course.
The constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock lies at the northern end of the tunnel. She joined me only a short time ago in criticising the Government's White Paper on the rate support grant. I went into the Lobby against the Government on that issue because of the intolerable burden that the proposed settlement would put on Essex ratepayers, despite the fact that the county has managed its affairs prudently and kept its expenditure down. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the illogicality of voting against this Bill. To do so would be to run the risk of putting an even greater burden on Essex ratepayers. I am sure that she would not contemplate that for one moment.
The policy of the joint committee of the two county councils, which is designed to achieve the financial viability of the tunnel undertaking at the earliest practicable date, is to secure small and frequent toll increases. Both councils have concurred with that policy and it has been welcomed by the Department of Transport. I should also make it plain that both councils are under a statutory obligation to restrict the tolls to produce an annual revenue which is not substantially less or substantially more than is adequate to meet relevant expenditure.
The modest increase which is now recommended will enable principal payments to commence next year, the outstanding debt being repaid by the mid-1990s. We are, therefore, within a measurable distance of meeting the cost of the tunnel. However, I was most interested to hear what the hon. Member for Woolwich said about thinking about the future. As he said, we should give the Bill a Second Reading and then have a long hard look at tolls, financing, road policy and the rest later on. The different sides of the argument could then be brought together.
I hope that the House will approve the Bill and permit the two county councils to get on with the task of improving and running this vital link.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I welcome the assurance which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) gave and acceptance of the amendment which was proposed in another place to the effect that the committee must consult Thurrock borough council before increasing tolls. Although he mentioned an objector failing to appear before the inquiry, it is a pity that Thurrock borough council is merely to be consulted and that there is no obligation to hold an inquiry, as the council has been consulted about increases in the toll more than once, only to find that it has been increased. I am glad that the amendment proposed in another place was accepted, but


I regret that there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry into proposed price increases when there are objections to them.
The trouble with the Dartford tunnel is that, although it brings enormous advantages—it has increased dock-related industries of all types such as warehouses, cold stores and container parks—industries in Thurrock bear the cost of using the tunnel perhaps to a greater extent than other indusries in other parts of the country which use it just as frequently.
In addition to companies, many of my constituents find that a firm has moved from the Essex side of the river to the Kent side, and to maintain their jobs they have to travel to and fro. As a result, they pay £6 a week in addition to petrol costs to travel to and from work. That is a heavy cost for people to pay simply because they have to go to the other side of the river either to find work or because a company originally on the Essex side has transferred to the Kent side. Although Thurrock recognises that the tunnel brings enormous advantages, I understand the council feels that the costs can bear heavily on local firms and employees on the Kent side.
Thurrock is faced with paying the toll if the point of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is followed, or paying the costs in the rates, and it has a right to complain. The alternative is for the Government to take over the cost of the tolls and make the tunnel toll-free, thus preventing the delays that will otherwise occur on the M25. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) talked about the traffic increasing to 78,000 vehicles per day when the M25 is completed. However, the local police in Thurrock estimate that possibly 90,000 vehicles per day will pass through Dartford tunnel.
The delays at peak times are caused by accidents in the tunnel and were caused in the past by the construction work. Everyone on both the Essex and the Kent sides has breathed a huge sigh of relief now that the construction work has been completed, and one no longer has to face that kind of delay. Nevertheless, delays will arise from the greatly increased traffic as it builds up with the addition to the M25 and with its completion.
In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), I mentioned that the toll could act as a disincentive to M25 traffic. It is possible to avoid using the Dartford tunnel when travelling outside peak hours, although this adds to London's congestion. The continued collection of tolls will cause unnecessary delays for motorway traffic. The tolls impose a heavy cost on those who have to use the tunnel regularly and lead to the possibility of diversion.
I listened a few weeks ago to a statement by the Secretary of State, by which I was very puzzled. I read a copy of the press release issued by the Deprtment of Transport on 25 January 1984 to check that I had heard correctly the news item on the radio, and indeed I had. The right hon. Gentleman said:
For the first time in the history of the capital, traffic will now be able to flow freely on motorway or dual carriageway roads from Scotland and the industrial areas of the North West and the West Midlands to just outside Dover.
In one of the reports that I heard the right hon. Gentleman proudly announced:
There are no traffic lights to hold anyone up.
I laughed hollowly to myself as I listened to that, thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had never driven through the

Dartford tunnel in peak hours, and wondered what he meant by saying there was no hold-up on this wonderful new motorway. However, I have thought again since then.
Perhaps there was a hint in what the right hon. Gentleman said, because he referred to the traffic flowing freely. He may have been referring, not to the absence of traffic lights or other source of delay, but possibly to a promise of good things to come from the Government. If the Government were considering taking over the Dartford tunnel so that tolls would not be charged, there would have been no need for my hollow laughter when I heard that item on the radio. Indeed, perhaps I should have welcomed it.
Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about the possibility of the Government taking over the Dartford tunnel, so that people will no longer have to bear the iniquitious burden of £6 a week as a special local tax for having the temerity to wish to travel from one side of the river to the other in the course of their daily work.

Mr. Barry Porter: I feel that I am intruding on a private party because I have no constituency interest. If it is any comfort to the promoters of the Bill, I have no intention of opposing it. Indeed I welcome it as it gives an opportunity to the House to discuss the principle of tolls in relation to estuarial crossings, and there is a great opportunity at the Committee stage of the Bill for the Government to reconsider their attitude on these matters.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents Wallasey, has vacated her position as I rise to speak, because this morning I considered coming through the Mersey tunnel through the Wallasey plaza rather than taking my normal route through the Birkenhead plaza. I have never heard them called by those names before. Whichever plaza one goes through, I assure the House that there tends to be a slight delay. Indeed, there are delays occasionally to the extent that one can get out and buy ice cream, a bottle of Italian wine, or whatever else may be available at these places. At Birkenhead this morning, I did not bother to purchase such luxuries, and I got through the tunnel fairly quickly. As I was coming through the tunnel, my wife and I were discussing our holidays. Our holidays this year, owing to the rather damp economic climate, will be spent in north Wales. We shall take our modest family saloon from the Wirral peninsula, and we shall go to what I gather is now called by the Boundary Commission Ynys Môn or, as it used to be called, Anglesey. To get there, I shall go through what is called the "Wyn Roberts" tunnel, near Conway. That was built very recently, and goes under an estuary. It might have been a bridge, but it was decided to spend £15 million extra to go under the river for environmental reasons. Accordingly, I shall drive without let or hindrance or ticket or toll through that tunnel. As I was discussing this with my wife, it struck me as being rather strange. It is, indeed, a strange example, but I am afraid it is only one of the anomalies throughout the country since the concept of the estuarial toll came in. I cite that one example only, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will in due course cite others, and that other of my hon. Friends will cite yet more examples.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) did well to suggest that the policy in relation to estuarial crossings is "flexible", in fact it is not. It is inconsistent, illogical and indefensible. To date the


Government — and I use the term in the past and present, but I hope not in the future tense—have refused to debate that argument, and instead have told authorities to increase tolls to solve their financial difficulties. Governments cheerfully believe that this will make most of the structures that we have—under or over ground—viable in due course. This is a touching faith, but it is not realistic. Most crossings are incurring losses accumulating to approximately £38 million per annum. The overall debt has grown from £268 million to £473 million over the last five years. A document entitled "The road to free tolls", prepared by the Merseyside county council, has detailed figures that show beyond peradventure — and I summarise for the sake of brevity—that there are four estuarial crossings in the country that have no chance of achieving toll-based profitability. One has doubtful prospects, four owe their financial success—if such it can be called—almost entirely to Government aid, and only one can lay claim to unaided viability, and that for only a temporary period.
I listened with some interest to the figures and forecasts put forward by the proposers of the Bill about the financial viability of the Dartford tunnel. I have heard it all before; the residents of Merseyside have heard it all before; indeed, the residents of almost anywhere have heard it all before. In my examples of the long-term unviability of estuarial crossings, the Mersey tunnels—which are my particular interest—are not even included. In the view of the soon-to-be-demolished Merseyside county council, those tunnels have received uniquely unhelpful treatment from Government. With all the crossings, the tolls rise and the debt rises — which is a funny way to conduct a business.
I hear those on the Benches behind me ask what it would cost to abolish the tolls. What effect would that have on our old and dear friend the public sector borrowing requirement? The figure currently bandied about is about £500 million. I am relying on the figure produced by various freight associations two years ago of £438 million, but the principle remains the same. It is vital to realise that the Government would not have to spend that amount. The actual cost of disposing of the estuarial crossing charges would be about £28 million in 1982 figures—less the cost of collection, which, on average, is about 20 per cent. Therefore, the net cost in present-day terms would be about £25 million. The precise figures are arguable, but if they are accepted even in general terms, that is about 0·37 per cent. of the surplus road user taxation in the year 1982–83.
What about the capital debt? My memory may be failing me, but I have heard of capital debt being written off when there is no possibility of it being repaid. I have heard of it being written off for the Mersey docks, the London docks, the British Steel Corporation and a number of other nationalised industries—and why not, when there is no possibility of it being repaid? It is nonsense. We are talking about a book transfer. I understand that I have been described as being on the arid side of dry, but I take that as a pragmatic view of economics. Of course the capital debt should be written off.
I have given the cost of that in any one year to the Government, which shows the relatively small scale of the problem. How that would be achieved and over what period are matters open to discussion. An admirable time

for such a discussion might be in Committee. I hope that the Government will at least consider the facts as I and other hon. Members have outlined them—I hope in a reasonable way—and open that discussion as soon as possible. It may be that the Dartford Tunnel Act 1984 will be the start of something more logical and sensible in relation to the crossings.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I have no wish to oppose the Bill. However, I wish to oppose the principle of tolls. The joint sponsors of the Bill, the Essex and Kent county councils, say that the power to charge tolls will cease when the capital debt has been repaid and maintenance and reserve funds established. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was rather optimistic about that. My experience is that the paying off of capital debt could be sometime, never.
The promotors say that it all depends on the amount of revenue generated by tolls, which in turn depends on the volume of traffic. It also depends on inflation and interest rates. Comparisons are odious, but when the Severn bridge was in its planning stage it was estimated that the cost of inflation would be 2·5 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum, and that interest rates would stabilise at no higher than 6·25 per cent. How ridiculous those figures appear today. The debt on that bridge is rocketing. We have heard about the joys of the bridge from previous speakers. I can tell them that it is not for nothing that some years ago it was given the name of the bridge of sighs.
The basic question is why there should be tolls at all. The Dartford tunnel is clearly established as an integral part of the M25. The sponsors of the Bill have accepted that the collection of tolls will undoubtedly cause delays to motorway traffic. Yet more than £3 million has been committed to the provision of additional toll booths. More money will be taken from motorists, who will face delays for a facility whose basic purpose is the easing of congestion in London. The tolls will cause traffic queues at peak periods, with the inevitable road safety implications—another important factor.
The cost to motorway users will rise not only through tolls but through delays. It has been clearly established tonight that there will be a disincentive to motorists to use the new facility. Routes can be taken that will aggravate the traffic problems in London. The Government's policy on tolls has neither rhyme nor reason.

Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is one of three hon. Members who have expressed a belief that in some way a toll causes delay. He also mentioned the possibility that tolls might create traffic hazards. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are clearly unaware of the circumstances surrounding both ends of the Dartford tunnel. Any delay caused would be as a result of the funnelling of a three-lane motorway into the two lanes of the tunnel. Far from creating a safety hazard, I suggest that the tolls, through slowing down the traffic and splaying it, are more likely to create a safety factor. The danger factor on a fast road occurs when three fast lanes converge into two fast lanes. By splaying out the traffic, as happens already, a safety factor will be introduced. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech. Perhaps he will catch my eye later.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is entitled to his view. But I assure him that my remarks are made on the advice of considerable authorities on the matter. I think that a free flow of traffic would be a better safety bet than the delays of toll collection. For instance, there is the Mersey tunnel. I understand that tolls were increased there again this year, and yet Merseyside is an area that needs to be assisted rather than penalised.

Mr. Porter: The toll on the Mersey tunnel was last increased in 1981.

Mr. Hughes: I pointed out earlier to the hon. Member for Faversham that the motorist is paying the Exchequer over £10,000 million in the current financial year. Only a quarter of that will be reinvested in improving road communications. Three quarters goes towards general Government expenditure. When considering the possibilty of an estuarial crossing by bridge or tunnel the Government sometimes treat the motorist as a poor relation, but the motorist consistently pays hand over fist.
There is no consistency in the Government's policy. There are tolls on the Severn bridge, so why are there no tolls on the Avon bridge, the A5, which serves Bristol and the west of England? When there is intense rivalry between the two regions, particularly in the attempt to attract new jobs, why is south Wales discriminated against? Merseyside is an area of economic deprivation. However, there are tolls on the Mersey tunnel but there are to be no tolls on the new Conway tunnel in north Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray. He must relate his remarks to the Dartford tunnel or use illustrations relevant to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Hughes: I am trying to show that there is no thread of consistency in the Government's policies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the case of the M25, the Government should abolish tolls and take over the responsibility from the Essex and Kent county councils. The accumulated debt should be written off. That course of action is essential if the M25 is fully and efficiently to serve the purpose for which it was planned. The estuarial crossings are part of the national motorway network. If tolls were abolished, the crossings would become far more efficient.

Mr. David Crouch: I have two points to make. The first is a descriptive point, rather like that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) earlier this evening, when he gave us a "Breakaway" programme about his holiday prospects.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made a sound argument against the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. Of course there are arguments against the Bill. There are arguments for not having tolls at all, and for saying that the Government should pick up the tab and give us free travel throughout the kingdom. That is what I should like to see, but we are not living in a perfect world.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Greenwich about his assumption that the good people of Essex and the good people of Kent decided to build the tunnel in order to meet and exchange thoughts. Would he assume that many years ago the good citizens of Middlesex decided that there were

equally good citizens in Surrey and therefore built London bridge? London bridge was never merely a local asset or a means of local communication. Similarly, the citizens of Kent and Essex were not thinking of a means of local communication, and what they built immediately became a national asset.
I used to live in Yorkshire. When we travelled down on holiday from Yorkshire to Kent — another "Breakaway" touch — we used to try to avoid the conurbation of London. We used to go through Hertfordshire into Essex and cross into Kent not by the tunnel—it was not there then—but by the Woolwich ferry. We bought a ticket and crossed the river pleasantly by that small ferry. That was one way of travelling. It did not occur to me that we should not pay for the privilege of being shipped across a busy river thoroughfare.
When I first became Member of Parliament for Canterbury my constituency included Herne Bay, which is now part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Herne Bay pier was the second longest pier in the country. There was a paddle steamer that crossed the estuary to Southend. I was sorry when it stopped running. Later, the pier was swept away and the steamer never ran again.
Those were all ways of crossing estuaries. People have many and varied reasons for wishing to cross estuaries. They may wish to go to Southend or to Herne Bay, but it is also true that people living in the north cross an estuary to reach Kent. It is not only people from Essex who wish to go to Kent. Equally, people living in Dorset wishing to go to Norfolk might choose to go by way of Dartford tunnel, not because of the M25 but simply because a crossing point on a river, such as a tunnel, immediately becomes attractive to the traveller. People have many reasons for travelling long distances around the country, and they will look for the most easy route.
The Dartford tunnel was not built just as a local benefit for the people of Essex and Kent. It was built with foresight, in recognition of the need to build a national asset. Unfortunately, when the tunnel was first thought of in 1930, the farsighted people of Kent and Essex who wished to embark on that project told the Government that, as people living on the perimeter of London, they had had the good idea of building a tunnel. The Government said, "That is a good idea. Go ahead, and we will give you a grant towards it." The tunnel was not built until after the war. It was opened in 1963. The Government kept their promise and delivered the grant at the 1930 rate. The two county councils had to find the remainder by borrowing and that debt has to be serviced. Subsequently, a second tunnel was built.
I believe that I misled the House earlier in my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) when I suggested that the second tunnel was opened in 1967. It was not. It was agreed by Parliament in 1967 that the second tunnel should go ahead. I believe that it was opened in 1980. There is now a double tunnel.
The Government in 1967 did not give us a grant towards the second tunnel. It escapes me at the moment which Government were running the country in 1967, but they were not the most generous of Governments. The Kent and Essex county councils had to pay the whole cost by borrowing, as it was properly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
The tunnels exist as a result of the good decisions of the people of Kent and Essex. Those two county councils have given us a national asset. They have carried a great part of the cost. How nice it would be if the Government were to say, "You have done too much for your country. You have overstepped the limit. You have been too generous. We feel that we owe you a debt. We cannot repay you what you have had to pay during the past 20 years, but we will pick it up from now on." I see my hon. Friend the Minister as I like to see her—smiling at me. I fear that within about half an hour I shall be dismal again, because I do not believe that she has £68 million, or thereabouts, ready to hand to me.
If my hon. Friend did have that sum, as has been said by other speakers, I fear that it would come out of the road programme and that some of the essential works that are required and promised, and are in the programme, might be taken out. I am pragmatic about the matter. I say to myself, "Yes, the Government should pick up this burden and take it from us," but it would be at someone else's expense. If that were to be the case, I do not believe that they would or should.
I argue therefore, pragmatically and logically, that we should accept the Bill. We are already saving the Government and the taxpayer money. The money has to be paid by someone. It has to be paid by the road users by the toll. It is not a perfect world, as I said, but I believe that we should not allow the Bill to be lost, and hear the Government say, "We will not pay." The Kent and Essex county councils would say, "Well, if the Government will not pay, and the road users are not allowed to pay, there is only one section of the community left who can pay, and that is the ratepayers." We have heard what a big rate increase that would mean in an area where the subject of increases is delicate and extremely unpopular.
I have no alternative but to welcome the Bill, imperfect though it is, and say that the tolls must continue.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I intervene at this time because it may assist the House to know how the Government stand on the Bill. Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on the excellent way in which he has moved the Second Reading of the Bill on behalf of the promoters.
Despite the charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I have to say to him that I do not have £65 million in my pocket for him, any more than I have various other sums for the other estuarial crossings mentioned during the debate, on the general theory that there should be no estuarial crossings in the future.
Let me explain why the Government are broadly in favour of the Bill. We accept that it is necessary, because without it the powers of the Kent and Essex county councils to manage this three-mile tunnel will lapse at the end of 1986, in accordance with section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, unless the Dartford Tunnel Act 1967 is re-enacted. In particular, the Government support clause 20 which enables the councils to continue to levy tolls. We also support clause 21 which amends the procedure for revising tolls. Clause 21 is among those

which the county councils very sensibly decided to modernise in the light of their experience in administering the 1967 Act.
With regard to clause 20, it may be helpful if I first explain the Government's attitude to tolls generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and several other hon. Members have raised this issue. It is important, because most of the opposition to clause 20—and by extension to the Bill as a whole—is concerned with objections to tolling in principle rather than to the clause in particular. That was apparent during proceedings in the other place, which may help to explain why the Bill completed all its stages there with only minor amendments which the promoters were able to accept.
The policy is one that has been followed by successive Governments of all persuasions. It is also one that has been endorsed by Parliament in the various enabling Acts under which the tolled crossings are managed. The policy is that these expensive estuarial crossings should be paid for by those who use them rather than by taxpayers or ratepayers. The policy is reasonable, because it is the users who benefit from the savings in time and money which the tolled crossings make possible. In addition, tolls have enabled substantial and useful additions to be made to the transport infrastructure which would probably not have been provided had it been necessary to finance them in any other way. In that my hon. Friends were absolutely right in their comments this evening.
The policy has not been applied to upstream crossings and the generality of motorway and trunk road bridges because it would be impracticable to do so: the existence of alternative routes would make it easy to avoid paying tolls. It is also reasonable not to toll such bridges because the benefits to users are correspondingly less where alternative routes are available.
I must say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) about tolling in general. I understand that he favours tolling other roads. However, the experience in other countries, where toll roads have been introduced with a substantially untolled network round about, is that traffic that should have used the specially built roads has turned off on to the old roads that were not designed for it. That is one reason why I cannot accept my hon. Friend's general principle of tolling, however much one could argue that we would not have started with tolls if we had started from here.
I remind the House that we reviewed the policy on tolling in 1979 when my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Social Services was Secretary of State for Transport. It was concluded then that the policy was sound and should be maintained. However, it was predictable that great concern should be expressed in the House about tolling. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Romford (Mr. Neubert) would have expressed their concern too if they had been in a position to participate this evening.
I come to clause 20, and ask opponents of tolling to remember that if this clause was lost it would not ensure that the Government took over the Dartford tunnel or that it would cease to be tolled. That is the reality of the situation. The Government have no intention of taking over the tunnel. There is no need to do so, seeing that it is exceptionally well run by the two county councils, and that it is financially secure owing to their prudent management. Even if the Government could be persuaded to take over the tunnel, the capital debt would remain and


the tunnel would continue to be tolled. The only effect of depriving the county councils of their power to toll the tunnel would be to saddle the ratepayers of Kent and Essex with responsibility for servicing and repaying outstanding debts amounting to some £65 million.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) suggested that it was inappropriate to toll a tunnel which was now said to be part of the M25. The Government accept that the tunnel links two sections of the M25, but it is not part of that motorway per se—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) may laugh all she likes, but she is well aware that the tunnel was promoted by the Kent and Essex county councils. As hon. Members have said, it is their tunnel. The cost of building that tunnel was freely accepted by the two councils as long ago as 1930, when, I believe, the M25 was not even a flicker in the eye of the then Secretary of State, if there was such a man. The two councils built the tunnel and accepted that responsibility. There is no reason why the taxpayer should be forced to assume responsibility for paying for it.

Dr. McDonald: I should like to challenge the Minister to drive all the way round the M25, when it is completed in 1986, without driving through the Dartford tunnel.

Mrs. Chalker: I should be committing a road traffic offence if I arrived at the toll plaza on either side of the Dartford tunnel and executed a U-turn, so I should be happy to pay the toll to go through the tunnel.
I understand what the hon. Member for Thurrock and others have said about the different crossings. Governments of both complexions have grappled with the problem, whatever the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may say at any minute. We realise that action is needed to cope with the increased traffic which the M25 will bring to the tunnel.
The Government have made two 100 per cent. grants to meet the problems. A total of £12 million has been given to improve the approach roads to the tunnel. A further £5 million will be used to enlarge and improve the toll plazas to cope with the traffic increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was right in his description of the toll plazas and the way in which they help to funnel the three-way motorway traffic to two lanes in each direction at the tunnel. The increased traffic which the M25 will bring will help the two councils to clear their debts. Catering for greater traffic in that way is the best way to cope with the M25.
It is also suggested that tolls act as a disincentive to using the tunnel, thereby reducing the economic benefits which the tunnel brings to Kent and Essex. Similarly, petitions against the Bill lodged by several London local authorities argue that tolls would divert traffic from the Dartford tunnel to the east London river crossing, should it be built. Both arguments are a little curious.
The last tolls increase application attracted only 16 objections. On the other hand, over 12 million journeys annually are made through the tunnel and the traffic continues to increase. It does not appear that the people who actually use the tunnel are put off by having to pay a toll. The fact is that the tunnel is an obvious asset to the local community's economic life as well as to that of people who travel a wider distance.
When I consider the alternative of using the Blackwall tunnel, which involves a 28-mile detour and, for heavy

goods vehicles, increased costs of about £10, I do not believe that it is a viable alternative. The economics of the Dartford tunnel are plain for all to see. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) mentioned the east London river crossing. I understand all the problems that that crossing and its associated roads may cause in the future—if it is built following the public inquiry which will surely be needed—but its purpose is to give relief to the Blackwall tunnel. Our best estimate is that it it might attract some 15 per cent. of the traffic using the Dartford tunnel. I suspect that, with the greater benefits of the M25, that is not likely to happen unless the traffic is proceeding to destinations within the radius of the east London river crossing—should it be built—or within the eastern arm.
The east London river crossing would have the happy effect of postponing the day when the growth of traffic at Dartford would justify a third bore without undermining its financial position to a significant degree. The combination of the Blackwall tunnel, the east London river crossing—if it should be built—and the Dartford tunnel appears to be a good improvement for Londoners in terms of crossing the River Thames to the east of London.
Clause 21 was drafted in consultation with my Department. Its purpose is to overcome difficulties which the promoters have experienced with the operation of the current legislation. The point at issue is whether the objectors to the proposed tolls increase should be able to require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry. Under present legislation the Secretary of State is required to hold an inquiry at the insistence of a single objector, and he must do so regardless of the nature of the objection.
The original purpose of giving an individual the right to insist on an inquiry was as a safeguard lest the councils proposed an increase out of all proportion to any increases in costs which they had suffered. In the present circumstances such a possibility is remote, and the Bill contains safeguards against it. Tolls can be raised only to meet authorised expenditure and the Secretary of State has powers to call in any proposed increase or to amend the toll levels himself.
It has been found necessary to increase tolls on five occasions since 1967 — in August 1976, April 1979, January 1981, March 1982 and on 1 January 1984. Before the increase in 1981, there were 12 objections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham said, only one objector insisted on an inquiry. When the inquiry was held, no objector appeared before it, not even the one who had insisted that the inquiry should be held. That objector, as a matter of interest, was the local Liberal association. The county councils estimated that the delay involved in holding the inquiry cost the tunnel undertaking some £300,000 in lost revenue, plus the cost of the inquiry, at which the objector did not appear.
Under the procedure now proposed the Secretary of State will have the option, instead of an obligation, to hold the inquiry. However, the councils would be obliged to advertise their proposals to allow a period for objections to be made and to send copies of objections to the Secretary of State. He would be entitled to require any relevant information from the councils. Having considered the objections, he could call in the councils' proposals and make the relevant tolls increase order himself, with or without modification, and after holding a public inquiry, if he thought fit. Otherwise, he could decide not to intervene and allow the councils to make their own order.


The Secretary of State would also have the power to initiate a tolls revision order, in which case the procedure would be essentially the same.
The Government are of the opinion that that system strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of the councils in making revisions expeditiously and efficiently and the interests of those who use the tunnel.
It has been suggested that the Secretary of State's discretion should be expanded to allow him to hold an inquiry even if he did not propose to call in the councils' proposals. The Government do not consider that necessary in view of the Secretary of State's power to initiate procedures. Nor do the Government agree that tolls should be revised under the provisions of section 6 of the Transport Charges, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954. That Act would also allow a single objector to force an inquiry on any ground.
It has also been suggested that revision orders should be made by statutory instrument. We do not consider that the possible intrusion into parliamentary time would be warranted, having regard to the adequate provision made in the Bill for the making of objections to be considered.
I emphasise that the tolls revision procedure in the Bill is not unique. Parliament has already endorsed a similar procedure in the Tees Tunnel Act 1976, although this tunnel has yet to be built. I must make it clear to the House that there should be no doubt that the Secretary of State will use his powers to order an inquiry if he believes it necessary. There is no way in which the Secretary of State would ride roughshod over the reasonable desire of objectors who wish to put their case. On the contrary, the Secretary of State has as much interest as any objector in testing at an inquiry the evidence, especially disputed evidence, for a proposed revision of tolls.
Finally, although I understand what my hon. Friends said in their speeches, I believe that the Bill is sensible, and I commend it to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading. It seems to the Government that the issues raised in the Bill deserve to be examined in Committee, where they can be considered in greater detail with the benefit of expert evidence.

Mr. John Prescott: The debate has reflected the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the M25 is a major improvement. However, we were not convinced by the Minister's statement that one is no longer on the M25 when one reaches the toll booths for the Dartford tunnel. The tunnel is clearly part of the M25, as was advertised by the Secretary of State when he opened the new stretch of the road. He said that it was an important link route between Scotland and Dover. All hon. Members will welcome its opening, and will look forward to the completion of the M25.
The debate has centred, rightly, on the controversial issue of tolls. Tolls were also the main issue in Committee and on Second Reading in another place, and they have been highlighted in clause 20, to which the Minister referred. I should make it clear from the outset that I do not oppose the Bill. In my area, where the Humber bridge is located, there is a possibility of a precept rate far greater than that being considered for the Dartford tunnel, and I readily understand the difficulties in which local

authorities will be placed if the Bill is not passed. Although the provisions for appeals and the consideration of rights are not completely satisfactory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) said, no doubt they can be discussed in Committee.
Publicly and politically, I was not an advocate of the Humber bridge, because I did not see how it could pay its way in tolls. As the Minister and other hon. Members said, the Government's view on tolls has been the same throughout. Their view was adequately reflected by the Minister and in the Select Committee of the House of Lords which noted the arguments for and against tolls. The Government's view is that, if a project is privately promoted, it must be paid for privately. With the Humber bridge, the local authorities involved entered into a contract stating that they would finance the project, believing that the cost could be recouped by tolls. No one would now enter into a financial contract if he knew of the possible huge debts that can be incurred with estuarial crossings. Many reasons are given for that, but they do not include the fact that people are blind to what might happen. Low growth in the economy, high interest payments, and high inflation in the costs of construction can contribute greatly to the final costs of estuarial crossings.
There are difficulties with the view that the user, who has the advantage, should pay, especially since the Government believe that the toll payments must cover interest costs, the payments of the capital debt, and the operating costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) mentioned the social consequences of tolls, in that those who must travel to work must find the extra cost. A much more potent argument applies in my area, because since the hospital authorities decided to centralise their hospital system, people from one side of the bridge must pay a toll before they can reach the hospital and receive medical treatment.
The estuarial areas now subjected to tolls—there are about 11—make up about 25 miles of the road network. They are a small yet essential part of the road network, whether to connect motorways, as in the case of the Humber bridge, or, as the Minister pointed out, to connect two parts of the M25.
Benefits flow not just to those who live around the estuarial crossing. I believe that the claim is that, thanks to the M25, a person can travel from Scotland to Dover by motorway. We readily agree about its benefits. It is felt that the tunnel will provide advantages to London because it will reduce congestion on the North and South Circular roads. We must exercise our judgment about the social considerations and the alternative avenues of movement. We should readily admit—more than the Minister has done — the social costing arguments, particularly in relation to such matters as the Victoria line financing, when considering the road structure and infrastructure costs and the effects on transport flows.
The Bill has provided a means of raising the issue of the tolls system and the toll principle. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Dartford Tunnel Bill was instructed to look at the vexatious principle of tolls. Paragraph 13 of the Select Committee report states:
The Committee were conscious that a number of the points raised before them concerned the merits of the general policy on toll crossings but they did not consider that a Committee on a


Private Bill was the appropriate forum for resolving issues which affected the highway and motorway network throughout the country.
We can understand why the Select Committee came to that decision, because we are being asked to support or reject a private Bill. As I have made clear, the circumstances are such that I will not vote against the Bill. As previous debates have shown, the issue does not go away.
I was surprised to hear that tolls are not controversial in Europe, and I was pleased that the Minister made it clear that a great deal of rethinking is going on about the toll principle, even in Europe. There is an especially strong controversy between the French and German Governments because there are no tolls on the German motorway going south but there are tolls on the French side. Most people are crossing the Rhine and travelling on the German side and, obviously, the costs of maintaining that route are considerable because no tolls are imposed. The German authorities argue that it is unfair that they should have to carry the burden caused by the diversion of traffic simply because the toll principle applies on only one motorway system. I shall not go into the complexities of the French motorway system, as I should be out of order, but they are relevant to the principle of tolls and the effect on our motorway system.
Tolls are a matter of controversy when discussing connecting motorways, whether it is the Humber bridge or the M25. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and other hon. Members cited some figures that showed the illogical pattern that had grown up—largely because of the way the estuarial authorities have developed. There has been the rather illogical position of Governments of both persuasions holding the line of not wanting to pick up the tab for the cost of the difficulties. That is the basic position. We are not consistently looking at the problem and asking ourselves whether we want tolls to make a contribution to the financing of our road network. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) suggested that he would like that line to be followed, and I was glad to hear the Minister's response.
Having tinkered with the idea of tolls for motorways in the early stages of the last Administration, the Government soon dropped that idea and we heard no more about it. Clearly they were anxious to raise money for the road programme and reduce public expenditure — all those measures are cardinal to the Government's economic policy at present. The position of the Department of Transport is that, first, it does not want to increase public expenditure, and we understand why it has such a policy. Secondly, the Department does not want to create a precedent, as it has been pointed out. If there were no toll on the Dartford tunnel, there would still be tunnels and bridges over which the Department had some responsibility—I refer to the Severn, the Tyne and Wear—on which toll principles apply. It is like a ball of wool. If you pull one end it keeps on coming—and there is a huge bill at the end.
As has been pointed out, the capital debt is about £450 million or £500 million and increasing far more rapidly than the income accumulated by the tolls. Therein lies the nature of the problem. The details vary in the various estuarial developments—on the Mersey, the Humber, the Tyne and at Dartford — but all have a growing accumulated capital debt. The question is whether we believe that the toll principle can solve the problem. Frankly, it cannot. Nor will the problem go away. We

should not imagine that happily giving the Bill a Second Reading today will make the problem go away. The problem is growing day by day and it behoves the House to look ahead and decide what to do about it. The principle of tolls is at the heart of the debate as to how finance should be raised to cover operational costs, accumulated interest and the cost of servicing the capital debt.
Reference has been made to a comparison made a couple of years ago of the total debt of the various estuaries. The total debt was then about £450 million and the total income from tolls about £28 million, 40 per cent. of which was used to cover the cost of operating the facility, so only 60 per cent. of the income went towards the interest debts and the capital debt. The capital debt for the Dartford tunnel is £63 million. On the Humber, it is £185 million, on the Severn £43 million and on the Mersey £72 million. The toll for the Dartford tunnel is £1·70 for a lorry. I hope that that is the correct figure.

Mrs. Chalker: £1·60.

Mr. Prescott: I am obliged to the Minister. On the Humber the toll is £7·50, on the Severn 40p, and on the Mersey £1. Even trebling the tolls would not raise sufficient income to pay the interest rates, let alone pay off the debt. That is the scale of the problem and it is constantly increasing because we never meet the interest debt. For the Humber bridge, 75 per cent. of the debt is to the Department of Transport. If we trebled the lorry toll it would be getting on for £24 for one crossing. The motorway alternative route would then be a great deal cheaper and people would take it. The idea of raising tolls to meet the debt is based on the hope that people will continue to pay, but they simply will not do so.
As has constantly been pointed out today, increasing tolls cannot possibly solve the debt problem. We are therefore forced, as the ratepayers of Kent and Essex will be forced if the Bill is not passed, to find the difference. I believe that the increase in rates required would be 3·1p in the pound. Hull district council, which is the responsible authority in my area, has rates of 25p in the pound. If it had to deal with this problem by means of a levy, as the Secretary of State advised a recent delegation, the rate would rise to 50p in the pound. There is no way to levy that sort of rate precept. Indeed, the Government's rate-capping Bill would impose considerable penalties on the local authority, even if it found that it could do it. Therefore, it is not within the realm of reality even to consider dealing with the problem in that way, and the problem is growing at such a rate that an alternative solution must be found.
The problem varies according to the estuary. The fortunate aspect, for example, of the Severn bridge—if one can use the word "fortunate" when talking about that bridge—is that it has a lot of traffic. Unfortunately for Hull, it has little traffic because it joins little to little. There is now an estimated bill for repairing the Severn bridge of £30 million. That bridge is under strain today because it was designed for lorry loads of 24 tonnes and is carrying lorries of 38 and 40 tonnes, through no decision of those responsible there. Is a £30 million repair bill a legitimate charge on those who must finance that sum through tolls for using that bridge, when it was a direct Government decision? The increase in lorry weights has had that catastrophic affect on the bridge.

Mrs. Chalker: Let us keep the record absolutely straight. The stresses on the Severn bridge have been due partially to the much greater level of traffic across that crossing and not to the decision, taken in this House on 26 November 1982, to increase maximum lorry weights from 32·5 tonnes on four axles to 38 tonnes on five axles. The stresses on that bridge have occurred from the sheer volume of traffic, over a long time, way outside the design specification.

Mr. Prescott: I remain to be convinced that a lorry weight of 24 tonnes going up to 38 tonnes does not have an effect on a bridge, especially when one considers the constant movement across it. I leave that there in the hope that we shall, on another occasion, be able to debate that issue. I was referring to the £30 million extra cost of the bridge that must be financed. That sum will presumably have to be raised by tolls, which is why the Government are involved in an inquiry about increases in tolls.
It is clear that the Bill deals essentially with the issue of tolls, in this case for a total £65 million, the estimated debt for the Dartford tunnel, and, as we have heard, it is hoped to pay that off by the next century. I add my voice to those who express concern over debts which, it is said, will be paid off by certain dates in the future, about traffic movements, toll assessments, interest charges that cannot be estimated and so on. They all extend the period of payoff, and we have not seen one estuary being able to meet the timetable of its programme of pay-off. I wish them well, however, in any targets that are reached.
A major aspect of the debate has been the question whether there is an alternative way of dealing with the problem. A number have been suggested—indeed, we are not short of alternatives — by various interests. I believe that we have reached the stage when we should reconsider the whole matter, and I do not say that in a political sense in that we should do that now because we are not in office. It is clear that a big problem exists and that we should start thinking of the alternatives, because the problem will remain with us.
As for the alternatives, it has been suggested, for example, that the Government could adopt them and take over the complete funding of them as part of the motorway and road network. Then it has been suggested that the Government could write off the capital, which has been set in total at perhaps £500 million. Hon. Members will say that that is a large sum, but many Conservative Members have trooped through the Lobby to write off similar amounts — for example for the National Freight Corporation and other bodies—and no doubt they will be doing the same for the British Airways Board's £800 million debts. Huge capital debts are written off by them without any compunction.
Thus, writing off debts is not new to this House. It has been done by Administrations of both parties without any real controversy when doing so has been put forward as a new type of policy. Indeed, if the Minister were more successful in getting people to pay the car road tax—it is estimated that £175 million a year is not collected— even half of it, if written off over, say, 10 years, would write off the capital debt about which we are speaking tonight.
Finally, there is the combination of debt that arises from write-offs and toll deficiencies. Perhaps each estuary should be treated differently by taking into account the structure of debt and by allowing tolls to be more relevant

to the capital structure. There are alternative ways of dealing with tolls and it is about time that the House began to address itself to the real difficulties that arise from financing estuarial crossings by tolls. The Opposition intend to give serious thought to dealing differently with the financing of estuarial crossings and the growing debts they are burdened with.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: This has been a fine debate. To take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), if the Government took control of all estuarial crossings and their finances, it would not be possible for the Essex and Kent county councils to go ahead and build their own tunnel. That would limit the powers of a local authority to promote private legislation and to go ahead with its own project.
Consideration needs to be given to the overall position, including the implications of present debt and those of future proposals from within or outside the Government. There are arguments on both sides that are not based on party divisions and it would be appropriate for a Select Committee to consider them as a way of trying to isolate the issues. The House would then be able to ask itself, "What freedom are we willing to give the promoters of estuarial crossings and other undertakings of advantage to vehicle users?" It would be able to consider also what powers should be kept for the House and what should be kept for Government. I shall address a number of remarks in favour of abolishing tolls on the Dartford tunnel but I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has argued her case well. As I see it, the time for tolls has gone and will certainly have gone when the M25 is complete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) talked about what the people of Essex and Kent did when they got together. I am reminded of a man called Wat Tyler who wandered down from East Anglia through Essex to Canterbury where he gathered a few peasants together. From Canterbury he approached London to overturn the Government. Unfortunately, he became stuck at the Well Hall roundabout on the A2 and had to camp overnight at Blackheath. That is why Tony Benn goes there occasionally to make great speeches. As a result of the delay, the authorities in London had forewarning. A traffic jam can have dramatic consequences for the constitutional future of a country as we have seen from that example.
I speak as one of the few Members who have earned a living as a lorry driver. I remember driving a lorry from Vienna to Watford. The only time when I had to stop, except for natural breaks, was on reaching the coast at Rotterdam. It is possible throughout most of Europe to go through or round cities without causing enormous environmental damage, especially when stopping at or pulling away from traffic lights and passing through residential areas. It is clearly essential to have purpose-built roads for heavy traffic. That is what we have created with the M25 and what we already have, thanks to Essex and Kent, with the Dartford tunnel. The situation is changing with the M25.
When I was a lorry driver and I had the choice of spending my own money or my employer's the temptation was to spend the employer's money and to keep mine in my pocket. Different considerations apply and a haulage firm will want to save £10 by not making a 28-mile


diversion, but the lorry driver who has spent all his money on sandwiches and does not have any money left for the toll will be prepared to take the diversion. He will probably favour that course also if it enables him to keep the money in his pocket. There is a balance of advantage for every driver when he is considering which route to take.
Many of us who have driven through France know how attractive the scenery is from some of the roads that run parallel to the toll roads. There are many forms of rationalisation for what in transport terms is irrational behaviour. That is the argument that we on the "no toll" side of the House need to advance. By addressing the argument to the Department, it will probably be discussed by the rest of the Government in private discussions. We need to be willing to face the consequences of successful action. We shall put extra burdens on the taxpayer rather than on the user of the Dartford tunnel when we are successful. I have no doubt that we shall succeed in the end. We must find a way of allowing the Government to give way on at least some of the estuaries first. Perhaps the others will follow. However, we cannot expect them to swallow the whole lot in one go. We need to find the easiest cases to go for. The necessary promotion of the Bill has given us the opportunity to start putting forward that case.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) on helping to create the all-party estuarial group in the House of Commons. Together, we can help to make the Select Committee and the Government look more seriously at all the issues.
There are traffic jams at the Well Hall roundabout in my constituency. My constituency shares with those of the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) the problems caused by traffic in Greenwich. It is clear that the M25 will be a substantial advantage to us anyway. Many people who start their journeys to Europe on the north or north-west side of London now come through London and our contituencies. It is also worth remembering that London has a population of 7·5 million within its boundaries and that much traffic is generated in that area. If the traffic is going to Europe, on the east side of London it will come through our constituencies. In time, I hope that one of the consequences of the Department of Transport's taking over some transport responsibilities from the Greater London council will lead to better radial roads, so that people can conveniently reach the M25. They will not all have to come thundering down the A2 or the A20, causing chaos in my constituency and those neighbouring.
My next point is slightly outside the direct terms of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the east London river crossing. She knows that most of the people on its route south of the Thames oppose it. Many of us living south of the Thames will find an advantage, as motorists, in using it, but those whose homes are affected will not. Those who are rightly putting forward the case for protecting the woods through which it will go have a strong case. I recommend that if the east London river crossing and its southern route are built, the same environmental consideration is given to protecting the woods as was given to Epping forest. There will be extra cost. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask me whether I would agree for a toll to be put on the road. I have no objection to tolls in principle——

Mr. Prescott: But the hon. Gentleman minds paying, in practice.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not mind paying tolls. I have paid them in the United States and other areas. The problem is making a correct analysis of their impact in terms of diverting traffic. I have no objection to people paying for services that are of advantage to them. It is when the impact is likely to be extra diversion of traffic to areas that we are trying to get the traffic away from that the problem arises. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give careful consideration to the woods on the southern approach of the projected east London river crossing and to see whether it is possible to give them the same consideration as was given to Epping forest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has done a service to the House in putting forward the case for the Bill. People like me who are opposed to the tolls for the Dartford tunnel can understand that it is necessary for the Bill to be passed. When I came to the debate I thought that it would be correct to oppose the Bill, but I have been convinced by the arguments that that would be wrong. It is right that we have used this opportunity to make sure that we stop drifting down into ever-increasing debt, ever-higher tolls and more uneconomic and unnecessary diversion of traffic.

Mr. Moate: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that this has been a fine debate. It has. It has been one of the most constructive and interesting transport debates that we have had for a long time. Nearly every hon. Member who spoke did so in a reasonable, courteous and analytical way, demonstrating that there is a complex problem, especially in the relationship between one tunnel and all other road crossings in the country. I venture to suggest that if we had been discussing a tunnel or bridge which has less rosy economic prospects, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) mentioned, the theme and atmosphere might have been different. It has been recognised that, largely because of the M25, the Dartford tunnel is now likely to be, perhaps exceptionally, something of an economic success. Therefore, the House has been responsive and conceded the case for giving the Bill a Second Reading and allowing the powers in it to be granted to the Kent and Essex county councils. That is not to say that the House has not examined, philosophically and constructively, the problems arising on all other estuarial crossings in the country.
I shall deal with some of the factual points that have been raised. It would be presumptuous of me to try to answer all the points that have been raised, even if that were possible. Hon. Members have expressed strong points of view on the philosophy of charging. Their case stands. There seems to be an almost overwhelming logic on both sides of the argument. We are, however, dealing with just one tunnel and I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) asked several questions and mentioned the diversion of heavy lorries into his constituency and the rest of London. As I said before, I do not believe that many lorry drivers will be diverted from the easiest, simplest and best route—the Dartford tunnel—and go into heavy traffic congestion or


even make a detour to avoid a toll of only £1·30. It is 60p for a car. Although I understand Londoners' fears that traffic might be diverted by tolls, I do not believe that any significant diversion will occur here. I understand that when prices have been increased there has been a negligible customer reaction. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman's fears will not be justified. I certainly believe so.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about some opinions which were expressed by the previous manager of the tunnel who was worried about the traffic being reduced from six lanes to two. The present general manager has said:
The wider plaza does not make it any more difficult to reduce the traffic into two lanes after collection
of the toll. That is a detail of traffic management in which there is scope for different points of view.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), in a fair speech, expressed strong feelings about regular users of the tunnel, especially those who live on one side of it and work on the other. Despite the argument that the tunnel is a great national asset and therefore should be paid for by the national Exchequer, I have much less sympathy for the international or national user contributing to that asset than I do for the local user. I have much sympathy for a person who pays £6 a week to cross the river. That is a matter for management and it is not for me to query it. Many of us have urged that there should be a concessionary arrangement, but, as I said, that is a matter for management.
The impact on ratepayers if the burden is transferred to the ratepayers of Kent and Essex has been mentioned. I quoted some figures earlier, but times have moved on since then and I have some more recent ones. I am told that if targets and penalties in 1984–85 are the same as for 1983–84, the cost to the ratepayer in Kent will be 8·4p in the pound and to the Essex ratepayer it will be 9·7p in the pound. That emphasises even more the serious consequences of not passing the legislation.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting point. Will he now join us in voting against the rate-capping Bill?

Mr. Moate: The answer is no. I welcome these constraints placed upon local authority expenditure. Nevertheless, it is right that we consider the consequences if the Bill were not to pass.

Mr. Bottomley: If the rate capping measures, which I also support, go through, presumably the cost of a Liberal objection, causing an extra cost of £300,000, will double to £600,000.

Mr. Moate: There appears to be not much fear of Liberal objection to anything, because the Liberals have been absent throughout the debate.
Many hon. Members expressed points of view which I think were legitimate and fair. The House has had a wide-ranging and fascinating debate on the problems of estuarial crossings. I thought the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) put it very fairly, and he very fairly gave notice to the House that he wants to start a serious debate on the subject. He described it correctly as an illogical pattern that had been built up because of successive Governments being unwilling, as he put it, to pick up the tab, and I think that is the situation. He continued the theme of an analytical and interesting debate on an important subject.
In conclusion, I thank all my hon. Friends who have spoken in support of the Bill. I thank other hon. Members who have considerable doubts about the propositions that we face. Nevertheless, I understand that, given the present situation with regard to the Dartford tunnel, they feel that the Bill should now proceed to Committee. On behalf of the promoters, I thank the House for the way in which the matter has been received.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Northern Ireland (Electoral Commissioner)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.
The purpose of this draft order is to provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a district electoral areas commissioner, whose function will be to submit to the Secretary of State a report setting out his recommendations for the grouping together in Northern Ireland of district wards into electoral areas for the purposes of local government elections by proportional representation using the single transferable vote system. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly explain the background to this draft order.
The local government boundaries commissioner, who was appointed under section 50 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, is currently carrying out a review of the number, boundaries and names of local government districts in Northern Ireland and the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which each district is divided. The commissioner's revised recommendations were published on 18 January.
District council elections in Northern Ireland are held according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote. For the purposes of these elections, and for no other reasons, it is necessary for district wards to be grouped into electoral areas. However, the grouping of wards does not fall within the remit of the local government boundaries commissioner. The existing district electoral areas were set down in 1973 under the provisions of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 which have now been repealed as spent. The existing district electoral areas have remained the same since 1973, because there have been no changes to district council and ward boundaries prior to the present work of the local government boundaries commissioner.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in answer to a written parliamentary question of 27 July that he would be bringing proposals before Parliament to provide the means by which the wards recommended by the local government boundaries commissioner would subsequently be grouped into district electoral areas and to establish procedures so that interested parties may make representations on the proposed groupings. The draft order now before the House fulfils that undertaking. I will describe its main provisions.
Article 2 of the draft order provides for the district electoral areas commissioner to be appointed as soon as practicable after an order has been made giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations of the local government boundaries commissioner.
Because it is theoretically possible under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 for a local government boundaries commissioner to be appointed at any time to make recommendations in respect of particular districts and their wards—that is, outside the statutory 10-yearly review of local government boundaries —

article 3 of the draft order also provides for a district electoral areas commissioner to be appointed following any such part-review.
The first schedule provides that the terms and conditions of appointment of the commissioner will be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury. It also provides for the appointment of staff, assistant commissioners and assessors to assist the commissioner.
Schedule 2 sets out the procedure which the district electoral areas commissioner will be required to follow in conducting his review, and which will enable interested parties to make representations on the proposed groupings of wards. The commissioner will have to publish provisional recommendations and invite representations in writing during the month following publication. After that, he may hold public hearings to consider objections to his proposals and will be obliged to hold public hearings if representations are made by district councils or by more than 100 local government electors in a district. After considering the representations made in writing and at any hearings, the commissioner will be required to submit final recommendations to the Secretary of State.
In making his recommendations the commissioner will be required to follow the rules set out in schedule 3 to the draft order. Schedule 3 specifies, among other things, that each electoral area shall consist of not less than five and not more than seven wards. I shall say more about that requirement in a few moments because I am fully aware that it has caused concern to some right hon. and hon. Members.
Article 5 of the draft order provides that once the commissioner has submitted a report to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall lay that report before Parliament. In order to give effect, with or without modifications, to the final recommendations contained in the report, it will be necessary to lay another draft Order in Council before Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), supported by a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends, has tabled a motion inviting the Government to amend the draft order so that the district electoral areas commissioner be empowered to recommend electoral areas consisting of less than five wards in some circumstances. We considered the range of the number of wards to be grouped very carefully in preparing the draft order, and, in the light of the representations received, the debate on this draft order was deferred to allow time for further consideration.
Despite the fact that I gave careful thought to the representations made to me, that consideration has confirmed our original view that for the purpose of holding local elections by proportional representation, using the single transferable vote system, the rules set out in schedule 3 are most likely to optimise the effects of that system. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not agree with the use of PR for local elections in Northern Ireland, but that is not the point of this debate. Parliament decided in 1972 that PR should be the electoral system for local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland because use of the simple majority system in local elections gave inadequate representation to substantial minorities in the institutions of provincial and local government.

Mr. John David Taylor: Which minorities have been given representation as a result of STV?

Mr. Scott: I shall deal later with some of the results of PR. When I reply to the debate I shall deal with the various points raised. However, there have been many beneficial changes in Northern Ireland as a result of PR.
The principle was confirmed in the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977. The hope was the PR-STV would increase the chances that representatives of both sides of the community would have to co-operate for local government to operate effectively. We remain of the view that that method is right for these elections, given Northern Ireland's circumstances.

Mr. Peter Robinson: If PR is all right for Northern Ireland, why is it not all right for this House?

Mr. Scott: The Government continue to attach a high priority to the principle of proportionality in Northern Ireland, as it provides the best mechanism for involving all major strands of constitutional political opinion in local government institutions. This is a key tenet of our policy —going much wider, of course, than just the sphere of local government — that only through such cross-community involvement can Northern Ireland look forward to a stable and prosperous future in which locally elected representatives can have a greater say in the effective government of the Province.
Given that the principle of using proportional representation and the single transferable vote has been established, it is a question of implementing a system which maximises the effects of giving equitable representation to candidates supported by a substantial minority of the electorate. It is, I believe, widely recognised in the theory of the STV system that that is best achieved in constituencies of five to seven seats. Restricting the grouping of wards in this way also affords greater certainty about the size of electorates and about the degree of proportionality across the Province. The latitude in the 1972 legislation, which allowed for groups of four to eight wards, resulted in electoral areas comprising four wards being far from exceptional — as had been envisaged in the 1972 legislation—and accordingly the overall results of past local elections have not been as proportional as the system should have provided. That is why the terms of this order are different from those of 1972.
While appreciating the need for the commissioner to be allowed flexibility, we have concluded that to provide for groups of five to seven wards would achieve the best balance of these important considerations.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does not the order give every appearance of moving toward a predetermined desired electoral result? An inescapable inference to be drawn from what my hon. Friend is saying is that the Government have in mind something which they consider desirable and that the number of wards has been chosen with that in view.

Mr. Scott: That is right. Proportional representation is designed to give the highest possible percentage of voters the election of a candidate of their choice. The move from four wards to five will increase statistically from some 60 to 85 per cent. the number of electors who will be represented on the local council by a candidate for whom

they voted. That is the function of proportional representation. I know that some right hon. and hon. Members do not like proportional representation, but I happen to do so. However, my speech tonight has nothing to do with that matter. The system has obtained in Northern Ireland since the measure was passed in 1972, and today we are introducing an order to carry it forward into next year's elections.
The right hon. Gentleman's motion also referred to it being
expedient for the Commissioner to be empowered to recommend electoral areas consisting of less than five wards where such recommendation would avoid an area being divided between two Parliamentary constituencies".
Ideally it would be helpful to all concerned—electors, parties and electoral officials—if, when necessary, local and parliamentary electoral boundaries coincided, but on this occasion I am afraid that this cannot be. Some of the wards recommended by the local government boundaries commissioner in his revised recommendations published on 18 January are split between parliamentary constituencies.
Also, because of the sequence in which the boundary reviews are carried out, it is likely that certain electoral areas would have to be split anyway because of the larger number of district council areas compared with parliamentary constituencies. But although it will not be possible this time to avoid splitting some electoral areas between parliamentary constituencies, the Government are very conscious of the organisational and administrative difficulties that this can cause for parties. We shall be reviewing the sequence in which electoral boundary reviews are carried out in Northern Ireland for the future.
The next district council elections in Northern Ireland will take place in May 1985, and the House will appreciate that the district electoral areas commissioner will be faced with a difficult task which must be completed in good time for those elections. This draft order is essential for the successful conduct of next year's district council elections in Northern Ireland, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: I do not intend to delay the House for long. Indeed, it would be almost unseemly for me to intervene in this row between the various Union parties and the Conservative party. However, I will help a little, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I shall not be looking towards Dublin; I shall be giving the British view. He will understand the implications of that for Northern Ireland. I am sure that he will know exactly what that means from the various things that I have said elsewhere.
The order provides for the appointment and functions of a district electoral areas commissioner. I suppose that the House could be forgiven for forgetting that during the past exchanges and believe that it was about introducing a new type of voting system. It is not. I do not want to say any more on the interventions that took place during the Minister's speech; Democratic Unionist party Members shouted from a sedentary position: "If PR is all right for Northern Ireland, why is it not all right for this House?" I heard that clearly. They are right to shout that. It simply underlines the point that I have made a number of times, that the reason why it is not all right here but is all right


in Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland never has been and never will be treated as a normal part of the United Kingdom by any Government or party in Britain.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is the British view.

Mr. Soley: It is not just a British view, it is a practical view with strong, historical support. I am sure that members of the Unionist party regret it deeply, but I also know that they agree with me that no British Government or political party have ever treated Northern Ireland as a normal part of the United Kingdom. The Unionist party regrets that deeply. I happen to feel that, while it is regrettable on one level, it is more important to understand it and then to make the choice whether we should be moving towards a united Ireland, some form of independent Ireland or something in between, or full integration with the United Kingdom which would please members of the Democratic Unionist party. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will know which of those three options I choose, and it is certainly not the last two because I do not believe that they are workable or sensible.
The Unionists are not well placed to argue against PR on the grounds that—I heard another hon. Member say this sotto voce — it was gerrymandering, because the history of gerrymandering in Northern Ireland would not put the Unionists in a good light. I have said this before, and I shall say it again, particularly in view of the tone adopted by the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists, that if they had made a better effort to take the minority community of Northern Ireland with them, if there had not been the discrimination in housing, employment and the drawing of boundaries, Northern Ireland might have had a different history.
My mind returns to the Cameron report on the 1969 disturbances. One of the things that that report found was that the minority community did not just have deep and legitimate grievances about housing and employment; it also had them about the way in which boundaries were drawn, particularly for Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I would, in other circumstances, have been reluctant to play this card against the hon. Gentleman. I happen to have in my hand the Boundary Commission report for England dated June 1969. If we want lessons on gerrymandering, we have only to read that report and see what happened in the House of Commons when the then Home Secretary gerrymandered the report. The report was the product of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It was gerrymandered so that it was not brought in for the 1970 general election simply because —the late Mr. Crossman explains it fully—the Labour party would have lost an enormous number of seats throughout England and Wales. Therefore, it was gerrymandered to prevent the Conservative party from having its fair share of the seats.

Mr. Soley: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to prove. I am trying to point out that the Unionists are not in a position to criticise others. I do not say that I am in a position to criticise —[Interruption.] However, my reason for not doing so is very different, even if that gives rise to some hilarity. The history of Northern Ireland has resulted in great loss of life and liberty because of the way in which boundaries have been drawn. There may have been arguments between the

two main parties in this House about whether seats and boundaries were being fairly drawn, but the arguments have been fundamentally different and have not resulted in the bloodshed that has been seen in Northern Ireland. Until Unionist Members face up to that fundamental difference, they will continue to ignore the powerful feelings of the minority community and so continue to ignore the causes of the violence.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I listened to the homily delivered by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but only parts of it had anything to do with the order. As the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to pour out his unchecked facts, it is essential that someone should set the record straight. He spoke about discrimination in housing in Northern Ireland, but he should bear in mind that 60 per cent. of public sector housing is in the hands of Roman Catholics. If that is discrimination, when the Roman Catholics represent only about one-third of the population, it is clearly discrimination against the Protestant community.
I should like to query some of the other facts which the hon. Gentleman gave us, but this debate does not lend itself to that. Accordingly, I shall restrain myself and deal with the order. I have no doubt that the order will be passed by the House. A Conservative Government and Conservative Members will pass it, even though, unfortunately, those hon. Members are not here to listen to the arguments. They will be led through the Lobby without ever having considered them.

Mr. Forth: Some Conservative Members.

Mr. Robinson: Very few Conservative Members will have listened to the arguments. I should not like to think that the Northern Ireland Assembly had to rest on such a small percentage of its members attending, because it would then never have a quorum.
No doubt the commissioner will be appointed and will do a good job within his terms of reference. However, to the people of Northern Ireland the order cries out that they are being treated differently. No one can take that away from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, because the order says that Northern Ireland is different. That is precisely why Unionists in Northern Ireland are against it. The order requires the people of Northern Ireland to go to the polls using a different electoral process from that used by our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom for local elections in Britain. The system is pressed on us not only for local elections but for the elections to the European Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I have fought on both systems, so I cannot be accused of having a preference simply because one electoral system might be better for me. Having successfully used both systems, I am entirely happy with a system of proportional representation. I do not believe that the system of single transferable votes gives a fully proportional result at the end of the day. I believe, as the United Ulster Unionist Council did in the Northern Ireland Convention report, that there should be a modified list system. That system was felt to be best for Northern Ireland and was agreed by the Unionist parties in the Northern Ireland Convention. I still adhere to that system and believe that it is the best for Northern Ireland. It is a truly proportional system, and the proportionality of the result holds no fear for me.
Northern Ireland is being treated and punished for the Republican propaganda put out in the early part of the civil rights campaign. However, the people who advocate the system foisted on us would not for a moment dream of imposing it on the citizens of the United Kingdom for parliamentary elections. Indeed, if they did some might find it difficult to be in government. That is one reason why they will not move. Their principles are so high that decisions are made on the basis of what is good for their party, not on what is fair and proportional.
When arguing the case for excluding fewer than five wards being grouped, the Minister is saying that the result would not truly reflect the percentage of the electorate voting for a particular party. That is true. The fewer the seats in an electoral area, the more distorted the result.
If one accepts the premise that Northern Ireland must have proportional representation, one must be pragmatic enough to know that Government Members would not have that system for themselves. It would be unparliamentary to suggest that the Minister is being hypocritical. I shall not use that term in the House, but it is clear that the Minister would not be prepared to operate that system for himself. However, the system has been foisted on Northern Ireland and I suppose that we have to accept that it would be wrong for our results to be distorted by having even two, three or four wards in each of the electoral areas.
For instance, it is not unknown for a candidate to be elected by a mere handful of first preference votes, yet, in a four-seat area, a party with anything between 30 and 40 per cent. of the vote could win only one seat. That means that 35 per cent. of the vote could achieve the same representation as a mere 100 votes. That distortion would not be helpful to the electoral system. For that reason we must accept the restriction that the Minister is placing upon us. However, I ask him to bear in mind that in parts of Northern Ireland it takes considerably more electors to return a councillor to local government than it does in others.
For example, in the Moyle area, a small rural area, there are about 9,000 electors, but it takes 689 electors to elect one councillor. In Belfast it takes 4,444 electors to elect a councillor. The multi-member constituency areas which the Minister has imposed upon us mean that in Belfast, for instance, in a seven-seater — the most common size in Belfast—a councillor will be mothering 30,000 electors. Local government is supposed to bring us down to the grass roots of public opinion so that there is close contact between the local councillor and the elector. The advantage to the councillor in Moyle is that he has only 700 electors to keep under his wing.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that the councillor in Belfast had to mother 30,000 electors and then came back to talk about the single ward.

Mr. Robinson: I accept that. The Minister must give us a further assurance that, although he suggests that there should be five, six or seven wards in each of the electoral areas, the commissioner will be informed that there must be a maximum of six wards in any electoral area in Belfast, and preferably five to reduce the size of each electoral area. That will mean more electoral areas for Belfast, but the people of Belfast must pay that penalty.
The Minister also said that the commissioner would have a difficult task to perform, and that as the elections will take place in May 1985 the commissioner would have to get down to work and sort out the electoral areas expeditiously. The Minister will be aware that under the order, as under the 1972 Act, he cannot appoint the commissioner until the local government boundary commissioner has finalised his work. The Minister should be aware that the local government boundary commissioner's recommendations have been published and can be objected to until 17 February. After that, the boundary commissioner need not, but can, decide to order further public inquiries. If he takes that course, he must consider the results of the inquiries before giving his judgment to the Secretary of State.
If that were the case, and further public inquiries were held, the local government boundary commissioner's final recommendations would not be received until May or June of this year at the earliest. That means that the Minister cannot appoint a commissioner to deal with electoral areas until the summer. Then the commissioner must begin work, grouping together the areas. We should remember that he must change at least one third of the electoral areas in the Province because of the changes in wards and the additional wards that have been created. Therefore, it is likely that when his provincial recommendations are published there will be cause for public inquiries in many parts of the Province. Those public inquiries can either be called automatically by the commissioner, or by a district council, or by at least 100 electors who wish to have an inquiry. I doubt whether the process could reach that stage without at least a handful of public inquiries being held.
After the provisional recommendations are published, it is likely that there will be a series of inquiries across the Province. The representations made at those inquiries must be taken into consideration. No doubt they will be reported upon and the views of the electorate presented to the Secretary of State. Perhaps when he replies the Minister can tell us whether the electoral areas, as defined by the commissioner, will then be brought before the House again.
Whatever the process may be, it will certainly take until the last months of 1984 or even into the beginning of 1985. Nomination day will be some time in April, and I suspect that the political parties would like a week or two in which to select their candidates, so it will be a rushed process. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he is confident that the commissioner can perform that task in the period specified? If he cannot, what does he plan to do about it?
I should also be interested to hear what are the criteria on which the commissioner will act when grouping the electoral wards. A few general criteria are set out in the order, including the specification that the wards must adjoin at some part. However, I have sat through many public inquiries for the boundary commissioner and have heard arguments about whether almost every street, road or housing estate, either geographically or socially, is part of a ward. Yet after the boundary commissioner has separated the wards because of those criteria, the electoral areas commissioner will come along and bunch them together again. It is the height of nonsense that one commissioner should separate wards, only for the other to put them together again. What criteria, other than the few general terms that are set out in the order, will the commissioner be required to apply to the combining of the electoral wards?
We have dealt with the small two, three or four-ward electoral areas which have been prohibited by the order, but there should be a general welcome to cease having any electoral areas, such as in Castlereagh and in Banbridge, where there are eight wards in the one electoral area. That is far too cumbersome. I worked in Castlereagh. Those councillors who had put themselves before a large electorate felt that they were in some way superior to those poor beings who came from four-seat areas. The more that electoral areas are brought to a similar size, the more evenly distributed will be the burden between the councillors in their constituency work and the more similar will be their status.
Distance is another factor which I ask the Under-Secretary to pass on to the commissioner when deciding the grouping of wards. There is a considerable disparity between the work of a councillor in an urban area and that of a councillor in a rural area. There is a vast difference between the Fermanagh council, which covers 187,557 hectares, and North Down, which has little more than 7,000 hectares. Representation must take into account the amount of travelling that public representatives must undertake. There seems to be no requirement for the commissioner to take those matters into consideration, but it is essential that he should do so.
The Under-Secretary needs to give a word of clarification about what the order means when it refers to each electoral area being given a name. I trust that in that process he will not get us into any arguments about Londonderry and Derry, but is satisfied that a letter will signify a name. If he is not satisfied, perhaps he can make that point clear. I guarantee that if he puts names, either from geography or history, on each of the electoral areas, there will be a long process of hearings in the Province, in which he might not like to be involved.
I am convinced that, no matter which electoral system the Under-Secretary decides to concoct and impose on the Northern Ireland people, their views will still come out and be as fervently for the Union, despite what the hon. Member for Hammersmith may wish. They will still maintain a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, no matter what system operates.

Mr. William Ross: In his opening remarks, the Under-Secretary kindly referred to the motion standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He did not seem fully to understand just how reasonable and wise that motion is. He decided to retain his original view, despite his kindness and consideration and the fact that he had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself. My view differs from that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). While, apparently, he is prepared to accept a proportional system of election, I am opposed to such a system, root and branch.
The Convention report is supported by many people. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has always been outspoken about his view. I make no apology for saying that I differ from the view of the Convention report on that matter. I believe that the Convention was wrong to take that view because that electoral system differs from the British system. The first-past-the-post and the simple majority system is far and

away the best electoral system. I am prepared to argue the merits of that system and the demerits of porportional representation with anyone at any time and in any place.
The Minister should be aware that the general opinion in Northern Ireland is that the Government are now deaf to the views of the Unionist population. For instance, the local government commissioner in his review of local government boundaries made it plain that he did not wish to change the name of Londonderry, but the Government chose to snub him and to make a decision under pressure from Sinn Fein and the Irish Independence party. I have yet to fathom the reasons for that. I believe that it was a most foolish decision which will cause great trouble for the Government and do no good, whether it was a sop to the SDLP or to Republicanism in general, because they will not be bought off with as little as that.
If there was nothing to be gained, why was the decision made? That question will be asked time and again and I fear that it will never be answered because the Government have no answer. If they say that the answer is, "Majority rule OK" we shall echo that because, if majority rule is OK from a Republican viewpoint, majority rule is OK in Ulster at large.

Mr. Forth: The Unionist party has always argued for a measure of self-determination and self-expression in Northern Ireland. It could be argued that the choice by an elected local authority to change its name was an expression of local opinion and therefore to be admired and applauded as one small step towards the greater principle of self-expression by the Province as a whole. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it could be seen in that light?

Mr. Ross: If at the same time the Government are unwilling to accept majority rule elsewhere and if majority opinion is carried when it is a Republican demand and refused when it is a Unionist demand, one cannot see it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he understood all the connotations and feelings involved in the change of name he would realise how much it is resented. It was made not for any good purpose but deliberately to assert the views of Republicanism over those of the Unionist people of Londonderry.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there was a time in the history of that city council when the SDLP was arguing against the change of name?

Mr. Ross: That is certainly true. I remember the arguments very clearly as they were carried in full in the local press. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was only when the more extreme element of the nationalist Republican population began to gain electoral support that, in order to maintain its own position, the SDLP saw fit to change its view. The SDLP now says that it is satisfied with the minimal change that has been made, but the more extreme elements in the IIP and Sinn Fein are already saying that it is not enough and they now want the charter of the city changed so that the name of the city and the county can be changed.

Mr. Harold McCusker: This proposal will help them.

Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend says, this proposal will help them, but I shall come to that later.
I have listened to many arguments about proportional representation in the House. The more I listen to them, the


more convinced I become that very few people understand not just the mechanics of it but its effects. We are told, first, that the reason for keeping the system is to optimise votes. In other words, it is to give minorities—and the smaller the minority the better— better representation. The truth is that in so doing one creates not a cohesive society but a more and more divided society, with the inevitable result of allowing each and every minority its own spokesman. When we create a system which allows a small grouping to elect its own man, its own representative, the members of that grouping have someone to whom to go for help. The end result is that instead of tying the community together, every grouping has its own person who tries to improve his own position within his community.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that it would make no difference to the overall position. It would make no difference to the overall position as regards the broad Unionist-Nationalist blocs, but it would create an enormous amount of in-fighting within each bloc. Anyone who has taken part in the elections, and who has looked at the results of elections, in Northern Ireland knows well that there is very little cross-voting from Republican on the one hand to Unionist on the other. But there is considerable cross-voting between DUP and Unionist party, even down to Alliance, and between Sinn Fein, SDLP, IIP and whatever else. While the overall position would not change, there would be division where there were formerly cohesive and stabilising forces in Northern Ireland society.

Mr. A. J. Beith: How can the hon. Member attribute all of that to proportional representation when there are three separate Unionist parties elected to this House by the first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Ross: Three? Differing Unionist parties have been elected to this House, but I no longer see three. I see just two. If one looks at the situation on the ground, which is what the spokesman for the Liberal party should do, one will understand why there are three DUP hon. Members and more hon. Members on these Benches. When one looks at the electoral viewpoint on the ground, the reasons for that become apparent. People vote for what they perceive to be the strongest candidate within their own general bloc in the area in which the candidates are standing. That is a fact, and I do not hear a dissenting voice from either side of the House.
Secondly, on the question of contact, the single-Member constituency allows the Member to be the representative of everyone in the constituency. I assume that that is why people came to me from the Bogside and the Creggan, and some of them still tend to come to me. Whenever one has one's own representative, one has no contact with the representative of a differing party, and therefore those who have no contact have no reason to think good of an opposing representative. Indeed, they have every reason to think ill of him because that is the story they are fed by their representatives, who are anxious to improve their electoral position.
Proportional representation does not unite and it does not cross community barriers. It institutionalises sectarian politics in Northern Ireland. I have never been able to understand why that is not apparent to those in this House

who constantly promote that system of elections for Ulster. One could say, of course, that it is easier to get elected. But what is the benefit of getting smaller minorities elected when they are going to fight constantly with other groupings, because they will always be anxious to improve their strength and position in society? There is no incentive for them to try to co-operate with others and there is every incentive to put forward their own point of view regardless of the effect that will have on the community. The real effect of giving minorities a voice is to create a group of minorities who are bound to quarrel among themselves.
Another effect of PR has not yet been mentioned. A by-election may take place because of death, resignation, police inquiries that lead to the disappearance of the elected man who does not like the inquiries, or assassination. For a by-election we use not PR but what is in effect the first-past-the-post system. If the individual who passes on or out of the council is in a five-seat area where he is one of two from one block and there is an election using the first-past-the-post system, those who were able to elect three out of five will be able to elect one out of two. That is as inevitable as day follows night. We have seen that happen and we know that it will happen again and again. That is the same on every occasion unless there is an equal number of seats or wards in the group.
If there is a vacancy, there are only one or two logical lines to follow. The first line is to say that the group of wards has its representatives, although they are diminished in number, and to let that situation remain until the next council election. The second line is to hold an election for the entire group of wards. The Government show no sign of doing that, but that is the only fair way in which the problem can be resolved. The control of a council can be changed by an unfortunate death, and that change cannot be made by the operation of the normal first-past-the-post system. The issue has not been raised in the House before but I ask the Minister to address himself to it and to tell me why by-elections have to be held on the basis of one seat in a five-seat constituency to fill a casual vacancy.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East has referred to the possibility of giving a name to a district electoral area. I often disagree with the views of DUP Members, but on this occasion I find myself in wholehearted agreement with the hon. Gentleman. An extremely foolish suggestion has been made and if the Minister has any sense he will have nothing to do with it. I trust that he will continue using letters, which are perfectly all right. I think that the people of Northern Ireland would see the introduction of names as a step in abolishing wards as we know them. That would be the next logical step, and I believe that that is in the minds of whose who wrote or drafted the relevant passage of the order. In addition, there are the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
By accepting the view that is set out in the order, we are putting the commissioner in a straitjacket. He will be left without the room he needs to manouevre in drawing his boundaries around the most reasonable areas in each council district. The Minister will know that circumstances and conditions differ widely from ward to ward and county to county in Ulster. The commissioner should be allowed the maximum amount of room for manouevre.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, East when he talked about a substantial minority being able to elect a person of its choice. I thought that he would raise that topic and so I remind the House of the results of


the general election. In a five-seat constituency, one requires roughly one sixth of the votes to win. That is about 16½ per cent. In a six-seat constituency, the requirement is one seventh of the vote. That is roughly 14 per cent. In a seven-seater the requirement is one eighth, which is exactly 12½ per cent. In reality, a shortfall of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. will still permit election. There is a certain loss as the votes transfer down the line.
The most extreme element in our politics is Sinn Fein. In Antrim, North it obtained 6½ per cent. of the vote and in Antrim, South it secured 5·6 per cent. For the purpose of the exercise, I am tying the Workers party and Sinn Fein together. Very few of us in Northern Ireland would see very much difference between them. In Antrim, East the figure was only 1·5 per cent. In Belfast, North, the figure was 18·6 per cent., in Belfast, East it was 2·9 per cent., in Belfast, South it was 5·3 per cent., and in Belfast, West Sinn Fein got 36·9 per cent. and the Workers party 4·3 per cent., a total of 41·2 per cent. In Strangford and in Down, North they got nothing.

Mr. John David Taylor: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is fortunate that he does not have that trouble.
In Down, South the figure was 9·6 per cent., in Newry and Armagh it was 23·2 per cent., Sinn Fein gaining 21·9 per cent., in Fermanagh and South Tyrone the figure was 35·9 per cent., in Mid-Ulster it was 31·3 per cent., in Foyle it was 21·4 per cent., in Londonderry, East it was 15·4 per cent., Sinn Fein gaining 13·8 per cent., in Upper Bann it was 14·9 per cent., with the Sinn Fein gaining only 9·4 per cent., and in Lagan Valley it was 6·3 per cent.
That means that if there were five seats in Belfast, North, Sinn Fein would be bound to get at least one seat. If Belfast, West had five seats, it would get two to three seats. If it had seven seats, it would get a minimum of three seats. If Newry and Armagh had five seats, it would get at least one seat, and if it had seven seats, it would get at least two. If there were five seats in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, it would get two seats, and if there were seven it would get three. That is in each district electoral area in those constituencies, provided that the votes are evenly distributed, which they would not be. In Mid-Ulster, the party would get between two and three seats, and in Foyle it would get one to two. In Londonderry, East it would get one seat in seven, and in Upper Bann it would get one in six.
Perhaps that does not appear too bad until one realises that such votes tend to be concentrated. Therefore, the result, with the level of votes in certain constituencies, would probably give that party more seats than the figures show at first sight.
Will the Minister tell us why the Government want Sinn Fein to win? It is the only logical explanation of having this system of election. Do they think that Sinn Fein could deliver a deal, where the SDLP dare not? That, I believe, is the real reason for Cardinal O'Fee's remarks recently, for which he was so much criticised. He was setting out to protect the position of his church because he is no longer sure thatve Sinn Fein will be defeated by SDLP. It was the real reason for Bishop Daly's anxious request during the past weekend that the Unionists throw a lifeline to the SDLP.
The Government tell us that they are opposed to Sinn Fein, yet right down the line they keep, create and

maintain the very system of election that gives them an electoral voice. They cannot be doing that by accident, unless they are even more ignorant of the effect of the results of the use of PR than I think they are.
Let us look at the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). The figure was 6·3 per cent. for Sinn Fein and the Workers party, and it was concentrated in one or two wards. They will fall inside a single electoral area. One would have thought that it was impossible in a place such as Lagan Valley for the Sinn Fein to get a Member elected. Under PR, it is almost certain that it would.
I ask the Minister again why the Government allow this system, which guarantees Sinn Fein a tremendous success. Why do they want Sinn Fein to win?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was a Member of the House when the question was first raised about how elections should take place in Northern Ireland. In those debates the House was packed with enthusiastic Labour supporters—I notice that one member of that party is present tonight. Some Liberals were enthusiastic that they had a single transferable vote system. That is not proportional representation. There is nothing proportional about it. Able exponents argued what proportional representation was. There was a great division in the Liberal party at the time about it. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) can read all of the wonderful speeches that were made. The purpose was to destroy the Unionist majority——

Mr. Beith: No it was not.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Oh, yes. We were told that we must come into line with the Irish Republic as it had a wonderful system, which we should adopt. Nobody suggested that that wonderful system should have been adopted by this House.

Mr. Beith: We believe that it should be.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Liberal party has no say, as it is only a tiny minority. It is like the minority in Northern Ireland that is squealing for this system, because it will help them. We were never told by any of the leading protagonists of the system that Mr. Haughey's party wanted to change the wonderful system in the Republic and conducted a referendum on the ground that it was unfair. It was defeated, however. The first Parliament of Northern Ireland was elected under this system and the result was that the Unionists had the same majority as they have in the Assembly.
All of the rigging and drawing of boundaries does not change the determination of the Unionist people. It does not matter how often the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) looks towards Dublin; we are not going the Dublin road. The party to which he belongs thought that it had us on the way with Sunningdale. Dublin was only a Sunningdale away, but it did not happen because the majority of the people said "No".
I should have thought that the hon. Member for Hammersmith would be delighted that the majority of Unionists in the Convention of Northern Ireland should have come out in favour of some form of real proportional representation, safeguarding constituency interests and having a modified list system. Although the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) says that he did not


accept that, the three Unionist parties accepted it unanimously. I refer to the Official Unionists under Harry West, the Vanguard Unionists under Bill Craig, and my party. I did not hear shouts of delight in this House and people saying, "Oh, the Unionists have now come to a point when they will accept it. No, it must be STV or nothing because that is like the Republic."
The whole thing is designed to make us conform with the Republic. The hon. Member for Hammersmith smiles but if he was a fair-minded man he would have said, "Is it not good that the Unionists have been prepared to say that this is the way in which we should go?" The Convention report was chucked out even though it said that minorities should be in the same place as majorities in committees and there should be 50–50 representation. Nobody said that that was a good concession to get out of the Unionists. It was ignored, because the House wants to get us on the Dublin road. There was great enthusiasm for that. We now find that they are not happy with what they have done and that they want to help forward the so-called minority parties a little further.

Mr. Beith: They are substantial minorities.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Let no hon. Member kid himself. The Sinn Fein party will increase its electoral support, and the Cardinal knows that. He does not want to be a chief without Indians, so he now says that one can morally justify a vote for Sinn Fein, a vote for the party that speaks of an Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other. But I remember Bishop Daly saying at the election that anyone who voted for Sinn Fein was voting for violence. Now it has changed. Why? Because anyone who has read Irish history knows that the extreme Republican elements will take over. They took over before. The British Government told us long ago—and it is recorded in history — that they never talk to the Republican movement of the South, they would never talk to Michael Collins. But they soon had Michael Collins over here. In fact, the members of this Tory party had a sticky-bun tea session with the leaders of the IRA with Gerry Adams. They brought him out of prison, and they flew him in by helicopter to take tea and sticky buns. I do not know what other liquor they put into him, but I leave that to the imagination.
The system of proportional representation is part of a conspiracy to destroy Northern Ireland, and the House thinks that it will succeed. I have news for the House tonight. The House can wrangle as much as it likes, but the force of the conviction of the majority will come through. The House will reap what it sows. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry, East said about Sinn Fein members being elected to councils will take place, and those Sinn Fein members will attend the councils. They do not object to attending the councils. They will be there. They will not come to this House or to the Assembly, but then, of course, nor will some of the Official Unionists come to the Assembly. They will be in the councils and, exactly as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, they will cause division in the councils, and they will bring the councils to a standstill. That is what the Minister evidently wants, because he is preparing the way for the House to be told that the Government will have

to talk to them and will have to get a deal with them. The deal will be at the expense of the Unionist majority. That is what this whole business is about.
The House tonight, with empty Benches and with hon. Members unconcerned about Northern Ireland and its tragedy, darkness and blood, proceeds along this road, with hon. Members smiling as if it was a wonderful thing that they are doing. The House will reap what it sows, and it need not blame the leaders of the Unionist community of either side of the House. It need not blame us for what it is doing, because it will reap what it sows, and the United Kingdom's own soldier boys will reap what the House is doing. I said that in this House, and I was laughed at. I was told, when Stormont was prorogued, that it was all over. I said that that was a Sunday school picnic and that now the real action would be seen. Who was right? The House knows who was right.
I say to the House tonight that it can proceed. I shall vote against the order, because it is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland. It will not help to stabilise Northern Ireland and it will not help any true minority that wants representation to have representation. It will be a bone of contention and conflict. We have seen this.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith said something about majority rule. I accept majority rule, and not only in Londonderry. Let us have majority rule right through the Province. If the House wants majority rule, let us have it in every section of the community. I do not see hon. Members rising. The House has heard hon. Members saying tonight "Majority rule for Londonderry". There is no majority rule for Belfast and there is no majority rule for the Assembly.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He gives me a great deal of encouragement at times, although he probably does not realise it. He seems to be saying, "Let us go back to the old voting system and get rid of all the old gerrymandered borders." I am inclined to agree with that. One could take the result of the 1918 election in Ireland, could one not?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not get the hon. Gentleman's point at all. It makes no sense. It is no good hon. Members standing up and arguing for a majority vote when it suits them, because I have heard people defending what has happened in Londonderry, saying that, after all, it was a majority vote. I have heard the Minister insult the Unionist electorate by saying that its leaders are only grubbing for votes, that they should stop grubbing for votes, let the people have their way, and change the name of the district council from Londonderry to Derry.
The Minister talks about compromise. The Unionists in Londonderry said, "After all, the council does not control only Londonderry, but part of the hinterland. Have a compromise, call it the Foyle council." But did they really desire a compromise? No, they wanted to do something that they had wanted do for a long time—to cut the British connection. That is what it is all about. Anybody who lives in Northern Ireland knows that.
If hon. Members want majority rule, let them have it in the district council of Londonderry. But let them have it in every other district council and in the Assembly. The attitude of the House is that it is all right to have majority rule if it is Republican, but a Unionist majority must not rule at all. That is wrong. Some day the House will reap the results of that policy. It has gone down the wrong road on the electoral system.
We have heard accusations about rigging boundaries. I was not a member of the parties which did that. I can claim that the Democratic Unionist party had nothing to do with boundary changes. The only good action of the House was to give me a whole section of Carrickfergus and Larne and establish my seat. I was thankful for that and grateful for the gerrymandering.
At the end of the day the majority in Northern Ireland will vote one way, and will keep on voting that way. There will be no weakening. We have been battered and bombed, ridiculed and scorned; the House changed the electoral system and prorogued our Ulster Parliament. But at the end of the day the people are as determined as ever. I am prepared to rest my case on the will of the majority.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I shall be brief. The object of our early-day motion was to give the commissioner sufficient flexibility to do two things. First, it was to provide district electoral areas sufficiently compact to allow councillors to identify with those who elected them and to enable the electors to identify with their representatives. That is manifestly impossible where, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, there is a vast multiple electoral area of wards with a total electorate of about 35,000—greater than would obtain in many British constituencies, even after the redrawing of the boundaries. Secondly, the object was to avoid drawing electoral areas so large and unwieldy that, inevitably, they would at some time breach the new constituency boundaries.
I have with me the report to which I referred in the earlier debate—not to quote it against the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but for a more constructive reason. The report in 1969 quoted the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and the rules for redistribution. Rule 4(c) states:
in Northern Ireland, no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another.
That was clear in the directive to the local government boundary commissioner and the commissioner who will be brought into being if this order is agreed tonight. It is not tolerable that we should be permitting the commissioner to bring into being these vast multiple areas, if he so desires, to make nonsense of the new constituency boundaries which have been the result of about seven years endeavour by the parliamentary Boundary Commission. The necessity and desirability of preserving the parliamentary boundaries has been dealt with by Sir Frank Harrison in the current report on the local government boundaries.
He says:
It was pointed out at the public hearings by many persons of differing political views that this"——
the crossing of boundaries——
results in confusing electors partly because they may have to go to different polling stations for different elections but more importantly because neighbours with common social problems within the same local government district will have to go to different Assembly and Parliamentary members where local government boundaries are not coincident with Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies.
He finally dismisses all that and says that, nevertheless,
the most that he can do in making his revised recommendations is to propose changes in local government boundaries which

breach other constituency boundaries only where the case for such change is strongly made out on social and demographic grounds.
Surely the parliamentary Boundary Commission takes account of these various considerations. Who is to say that Sir Frank Harrison, in the context of his duties as boundary commissioner for local government affairs, knows more than the Boundary Commission which laboured for seven years on parliamentary constituencies? I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, if he cannot amend the order in conformity with the reasonable suggestion that we put forward, will feel able to give the commissioner some guidance and suggest that he should exercise plain common sense to avoid the man trap into which he might otherwise fall.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would assist the House if the Minister, when he replies, could clear up a point raised by my right hon. Friend and also, previously, by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who both suggested that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to give advice and counsel to the commissioner after his appointment in order to modify, interpret or add to the terms of the order.
I would have thought that that would be an unlawful procedure on the part of the Secretary of State, and I hope that—as that point has bulked large in the debate—the Minister will deal with the legality, one way or the other, of such a procedure.

Mr. Molyneaux: In my generosity, I was assuming that the Minister would deal with that problem. I was judging from his expression when the point was made.
Rule 4 in schedule 3 uses the words:
A name shall be given to each electoral area.
Is there any intention to substitute a name for the method hitherto used—a letter of the alphabet? If so, I beg the Minister to think again. We have enough trouble at the moment. The Minister and his colleagues will have enough trouble adjudicating on the many other requests coming into the pipeline for change of district council names. They have not finished yet, having made the fatal change in the case of Londonderry.
It seems that Ministers are very selective about which recommendations of the commissioners they accept and which they reject. In the revised boundary commissioners' report, it is stated clearly that, in regard to the district of Londonderry,
It is recommended that the boundary and the name of the district, established by the Local Government (Boundaries) Order (NI) 1972, shall remain unchanged".
I hope that there will be second thoughts on that subject.
The Minister accidentally revealed that it was intended that this representation and grouping might possibly be continuing and open-ended. In other words, if a certain party consistently did well in a particular electoral area it illustrated that there was something wrong with the system and, therefore, the system would be changed.
I take a cynical view of Whitehall attitudes to elections in Northern Ireland, because I can well remember a right hon. Gentleman who sat on the Conservative Benches saying to me in the aftermath of an STV election in Northern Ireland as he sat head in hands thinking about the result, "Jim, I have to confess that I have come to the conclusion that a majority will still be a majority no matter how we rig the system."
We will not take kindly to further experiments and devices, because I assure the Minister and other hon.


Members that their devices, and all the intrigue which has been tried in the past, will have the opposite effect to that which is wanted.

Mr. John David Taylor: The Minister, in presenting this draft order, was clearly ill at ease. He may have been thinking ahead to Thursday's debate, or it may be that he knows that most Conservative Members do not support the principles contained in the draft order. The Conservative party stands opposed to proportional representation and STV, and if Conservative Members were listening to the debate they would all be voting against the draft order. The trouble is that there are only three members of the Conservative party present and only one each from the Labour and Liberal parties. The troops will come in in a few minutes to vote the order through without hearing the merits of the argument.
STV does not dramatically change the results in Northern Ireland. The issue is not whether we have STV; it is whether we have the same electoral system in Northern Ireland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. No argument put forward this evening has defended the idea of having a separate system in Northern Ireland from that to be found elsewhere in Great Britain other than by those who want the same system in Northern Ireland as exists in the Republic of Ireland.
It was interesting to note that for the first time in any debate in which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has taken part on Northern Ireland, he did not refer to the position in the Republic of Ireland. The reason for that was that Fianna Fail stands opposed to STV. That is why he did not wish to draw the analogy with the Republic of Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) mentioned the recommendations of the local government boundary commissioner about the name of Londonderry. The Government's decision to change Londonderry to Derry is not based on the commissioner's impartial recommendation. Oh, no, they have thrown that aside. It is a decision by the Minister which is biased and politically motivated and which will create greater division and polarisation in a city where we want greater co-operation. It was a bad decision by the Government, and the Conservative party should be ashamed of it in so far as it affects the affairs of Londonderry city.
The grouping of wards of five and not more than seven has many implications into which we do not have time to go in detail. If the Minister studies the local government boundary commissioner's report he will find that many of the 26 councils will have only 15 wards. It means that they will have only three electoral areas under the new system that he proposes. Why is he proposing it? Remember, this is a different STV system from the one that we had for the last local elections.
The reason is that once again the Government are trying to rig the local government results in Northern Ireland. They tried last time, and they failed, so this time they have changed the system and rigged it yet again. The Minister gave us the reason; it is to bring in small minority parties. That cannot mean the Official Unionist party, which is the largest pary in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP or the Alliance party. The only small

party that the Government can help to bring in under this newly rigged system is the Provisional Sinn Fein, and that will be the result.
Unfortunately, this system will also mean that council areas will cross more parliamentary boundaries than hitherto, and so it does not provide a good working relationship between locally elected councillors and Members of Parliament. One other point that has not been brought out this evening is that the order discriminates against town dwellers in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that they form the majority in Northern Ireland. Under the new recommendations, many of the towns will have six wards, including Armagh city. Only five of them can be grouped in an area. One ward can be outside, making six wards in all. Many towns will have one ward outside, in a rural area. One ward in six represents about 16 per cent. of the area. Those townspeople will be overcome by the rural voters and will not obtain representation on the council.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will reply to a point made frequently in the debate. I refer to the fact that it is important that there are no names for the electoral areas. The Minister should take up the challenge and declare that there will be no names for the electoral areas. We must have confirmation of that tonight, otherwise we shall have to go back quickly and start thinking of very attractive names for them.

Mr. Scott: With the leave of the House, perhaps I can draw the debate to a conclusion. To say that the debate has ranged widely would be a slight underestimate. However, I should like to concentrate on the order and the arrangements that it proposes for the election in 1985.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the Minister does not need the leave of the House. If he had to obtain the leave of the House, I should certainly object. Surely he does not need it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

Mr. Scott: We want to put forward the arrangements to conduct the elections in 1985. We are not tonight—although one could have been forgiven for thinking it—talking about the principle of proportional representation for local government elections in Northern Ireland. We decided to do that in 1972, and it was reaffirmed in 1977. This order, which makes the detailed arrangements for the conduct of the elections next year, comes under the auspices of the 1977 order. For reasons that seemed good to the House in 1972, good to the House in 1977 and, I believe, would seem good to the House today, it has been decided to use proportional representation for local government elections in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will forgive me if I do not go down the road that he travelled on constitutional matters, and I assure him that I will apply the same rule to other hon. Members who sought to traverse those routes. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke at length about the merits of proportional representation. The order is concerned not with those merits but with ensuring that we make the provisions for the implementation of proportional representation as effective as possible. That is why we have provided for the limit of five, six or seven


wards in any particular district. The hon. Member also mentioned the question of timing, and I must confess that it is tight.
With regard to the hearings that may eventually have to take place, we have provided in the order for the appointment of assistant commissioners. They will be able to undertake a number of those hearings and sufficient assistant commissioners will be appointed to ensure that we get the order and arrangements through in time to hold the elections in 1985.
We will eventually need a new order to come before the House to confirm the arrangements finally made. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the modified list. A modified list system leaves the choice of the number of candidates to the parties concerned, whereas STV leaves the choice to the electors. The whole point about STV is that it is for the benefit of the voters rather than for the parties. The modified list system——

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No. The debate ends at 11.30. There is a chance to draw a balance between proportionality and the links between the Member and the area that he represents. I believe that STV is most effective in achieving that.
Hon. Members talked about the size of areas in Belfast. I cannot give an undertaking, not least for the reasons that are implicit in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that the Government will give any guidance to the commissioner in coming to decisions. The commissioner will act according to the guidelines in the draft order, but, of course, it will be possible for councils and electors to make representations to the commissioner along the lines advanced by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. It would not be proper for the Government to give that guidance.
The only criteria which the commissioner must follow are those set out in schedule 3 to the draft order. Apart from that he must apply his experience and judgment, taking account of any representations made to him.
Much has been made about the question of names for the electoral districts. A letter designating an electoral order is not a name. The order provides that the names of electoral areas will be a matter for the commissioner. Of course, he will be open to representation from those who are interested in such matters.
I am sure that the commissioner, whoever he is, will be conscious of the sensitivity involved in names in Northern Ireland. No one with experience of Northern Ireland could fail to realise the sensitivity involved. I am sure that he will receive advice from the parties and district councils about appropriate names.

Mr. John David Taylor: I am alarmed at the Government's proposal to give names to the electoral areas. I agree that it is a sensitive matter. Will the Minister confirm that the district councils will have the right to change the names?

Mr. Scott: The commissioner will decide the names and the councils can make representations to him about the names. Eventually an order will come before the House, including such matters.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) talked about the name of the historic city. I do not want to go down that road, but he advocates that there should be no difference between Great Britain and Northern

Ireland. In Great Britain such a matter would not have come before a Minister. It is within a council's competence to change its name. In this case we are simply bowing to the wishes of the authority to change the name of its council, not of the city.
In a proportional representation, single transferable vote by-election there is no first-past-the-post election but an absolute majority election after transfers if necessary. The candidate who first achieves more than 50 per cent. of the votes is elected.
I should like to knock down two arguments in the debate. The first was that STV was chosen because for some reason we wished to align the electoral system of Northern Ireland with that in the Republic of Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth. We sought a system which would provide for Northern Ireland a mode of election to achieve the aims which I set out in my opening remarks. Secondly, this Government are totally and absolutely opposed to everything that Sinn Fein stands for and we shall do our best to ensure that the aims that it seeks are not brought about. We absolutely detest the advocacy and means of violence.
The right hon. Member for Down, South interrupted when I was asked whether the Secretary of State can give guidance to the commissioner once he has been appointed. No. It is for the commissioner to conduct his review in accordance with the rules set out in schedule 3 to the draft order. In reaching his determination he may, of course, have regard to representations made to him during that review, but Ministers will play no part in that once the commissioner has embarked upon his review.
I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 13.

Division No. 153]
[11.29 pm


AYES


Ashby, David
Jackson, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Brinton, Tim
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Burt, Alistair
Lawler, Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cope, John
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lilley, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Neil


Fox, Marcus
Maclean, David John.


Freeman, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Galley, Roy
Mather, Carol


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Merchant, Piers


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Harvey, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Newton, Tony


Hayes, J.
Normanton, Tom


Hayward, Robert
Norris, Steven


Hind, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, William (Corby)


Holt, Richard
Powley, John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raffan, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)






Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ryder, Richard
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Speller, Tony
Watson, John


Spencer, D.
Watts, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, J.



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. John Major and


Terlezki, Stefan
Mr. Ian Lang.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Boyes, Roland
Skinner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


McCusker, Harold
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, J.
Mr. William Ross and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Clifford Forsythe.


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.

Northern Ireland (European Assembly Elections)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
These regulations provide for the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland to the European Assembly. The House recently approved similar regulations for England, Wales and Scotland. The draft Northern Ireland regulations will replace the European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1979, and in most respects do not differ from them in substance. The new regulations are necessary because of various changes in electoral law since 1979. They apply, with appropriate modifications, provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1983 which are equivalent to the provisions applied by the 1979 regulations. As the House will recall, the Representation of the People Act 1983 was a consolidation measure.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I first set out briefly the main changes which have been made since 1979 and which are common to the Northern Ireland regulations and the regulations for England, Wales and Scotland. I will then go on to describe the ways in which the Northern Ireland regulations are different.
The principal change resulting from the application of last year's Representation of the People Act is the exclusion of Saturdays from the computation of time for the purposes of the election and absent voting timetables. The timetable will thus be extended in line with the parliamentary elections timetable. As a result, statutory restrictions on election broadcasts will apply for a period of six weeks before polling day, rather than five weeks as previously. The recent provisions enabling voluntary mental patients to be registered for parliamentary elections will also apply for the purposes of European Assembly elections.
These draft regulations, like the corresponding Great Britain regulations, provide for candidates' permitted election expenses to be increased from £5,000 plus 2p for each entry in the register of electors to £8,000 plus 3½p per entry, to take account of inflation. Similarly, the maximum payment that an agent may make without obtaining a bill or receipt will be increased from £12 to £20 and the maximum amount which an individual may spend without the agent's authorisation will be raised from £3 to £5.
I turn now to the main special features of the draft Northern Ireland regulations. The most obvious difference between these regulations and the Great Britain set lies in the rules governing the method of election and the procedure for the count, because in Northern Ireland the election will be by proportional representation using the single transferable vote system. This method of election is set down in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, which also provides that Northern Ireland shall form one constituency returning three representatives. The Government believe that it is right for these arrangements


to be retained for this year's elections, and the draft regulations therefore reflect this position, which is enshrined in the 1978 Act.
Right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will know only too well that there is a widespread belief that electoral abuse takes place on a serious scale in Northern Ireland. It is not possible within the confines of these regulations to introduce significant new measures to deal with personation; that would require primary legislation. However, I know that the chief electoral officer and his staff, in co-operation with the police, will make every effort to apply existing procedures with the maximum effectiveness for these elections.
These draft regulations enable us, however, to make some changes in postal voting procedures so as to reduce the opportunities for malpractice. In line with the rules applying to the Northern Ireland Assembly and district council elections, it will not be possible for an elector to obtain an absent vote for the European Assembly election on the ground that he or she no longer resides at his or her qualifying address. Hon. Members will have read the Government's White Paper reply to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on the Representation of the People Acts, Cmnd. 9140, published last week and will know that we are proposing similarly to limit the availability of postal votes in Northern Ireland for future parliamentary elections. This is, of course, different from what is proposed for the rest of the United Kingdom, but the Government believe it to be justified, given the serious level of abuse which is peculiar to Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister used the word "similarly" in relation to these regulations compared with the White Paper on the reform of the Representation of the People Acts. Will he make it clear that the similarity is simply that apparently the absent vote for removal will not be available in the European election, whereas it is proposed not to give the absent vote on holiday in Northern Ireland in the context of the Representation of the People Acts?

Mr. Scott: That proposal is similar, but the proposal in the White Paper goes much wider and no doubt there will be an opportunity to debate that in due course. As I say, we believe that this departure is justified, given the serious level of abuse which is peculiar to Northern Ireland.
The regulations also tighten up the requirements for certification of postal voting applications made on grounds of blindness or other physical incapacity in line with Northern Ireland regulations made for last year's parliamentary election and foreshadowed in the White Paper to which I referred.
I conclude my opening remarks by making a general point about this year's European Assembly election. The elections will be held in all member states during the period 14 to 17 June. Under the Community Act of 1976, they should have been held from 7 to 10 June, exactly five years after the last elections, but agreement was reached on the slightly later dates because the elections would otherwise have coincided with certain holidays in member states. Throughout the United Kingdom, polling will be on Thursday 14 June. The counting of votes cannot begin until polling has finished in every member state.
I seek the approval of the House to these draft regulations, which are necessary for the conduct of the election on 14 June in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clive Soley: I shall be brief and uncontentious, and resist the temptation to have round two on PR, despite the Minister's early reference to that. Nor shall I comment on the serious problem of malpractice voting in Northern Ireland. I note, as I noted in the previous debate and as I have on other occasions, that there are differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and that that is inevitable in the circumstances. The Labour party will not be dividing the House on this issue, as we accept that these provisions are necessary.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before coming to the main purport of my remarks, I wish to refer briefly to the exchange some moments ago between myself and the Minister. If there were no other reason for my hon. Friends and myself to vote against these regulations, as indeed there is, it would be justified on the ground that they embody a principle involved in the White Paper on the reform of the Representation of the People Acts, namely, that it is tolerable to withdraw a right of exercising the vote from the electors of one part of the United Kingdom on the ground that there are particular risks of malpractice alleged in that part. The remedy for that is, if necessary, to take special precautions in that part of the United Kingdom. It is not justifiable to punish the electors in one part of the United Kingdom for the faults and failings of others by withdrawing from them the right of a franchise that is possessed everywhere else. As the Minister has said, this is a matter that will have to be considered more at large in the context of elections to the House, but it would have been disingenuous to pass it over as it was mentioned by the Minister and thus brought to light and to the attention of the House.
Even if the regulations were defeated tonight, the European elections would nevertheless take place in Northern Ireland and would nevertheless take place upon the principle of proportional representation. Even if this is so, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to vote against them to affirm our abhorrence of the imposition of a different system of voting in Northern Ireland, at an election comprising the whole of the United Kingdom, from that which is to apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, and to mark our disapprobation at the manner in which the party which sustains the Government has departed from the natural meaning of the position which it took up when in Opposition and the pledges that were implicit in the votes and speeches which Conservative Members made at that time.
The provisions in the European Assembly Election Act 1978 were the subject of a good deal of debate in the House. We had it twice over in two successive Sessions—1976–77 and 1977–78—and the second occasion was split by proceedings to obtain a guillotine motion. In effect, there were three sets of debates in the 1974–79 Parliament upon the principle of the European Assembly elections. There was, therefore, ample opportunity for hon. Members, parties and Her Majesty's Opposition of the day to make their position clear on the various contentious matters which arose. The contentious matter with which I am immediately concerned is the proposal in the Bills which became embedded—I would not use the Minister's word "enshrined"—in the 1978 Act that in


Northern Ireland alone in the United Kingdom is the election to be conducted upon the principles of proportional representation.
There was ample opportunity and occasion for views to be placed upon the record, and the Opposition of the day put their views on the record repeatedly, clearly and firmly. I must weary the House—not, I hope, at too great a length — by recalling the view of the Conservative party and the Conservative Opposition while the provisions were being passed into law. In many instances the wording that was adopted by the Opposition spokesmen is valid today, is lapidary, and I could not improve upon it. I shall not quote—if I were to do so, it would take much longer than the total time that we have available for the debate—all the appellations made by the then Conservative Opposition of total rejection of the principle of PR elections in one part only the United Kingdom.
In the debate on 25 April 1977 the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who is now the Minister of State, Home Office, said:
in elections that cover the whole United Kingdom, it would be very undesirable to have a different electoral system in Northern Ireland from what we have in the rest of the United Kingdom. It would lead to all kinds of problems that we should be wise to avoid.
So outspoken and so clear was that statement that I remember that the then Home Secretary who was in charge of the Bill challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he was expressing a personal opinion or speaking officially for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman confirmed that he was speaking for the Opposition and, quite remarkably, when Mr. Whitelaw, now Lord Whitelaw, replied to the debate for the Opposition, he took the unusual step not merely of affirming and confirming that his junior had spoken for the Opposition officially but of telling the then Home Secretary that what he had said
represents my view and the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Shadow Cabinet.
If it is possible for a party in Opposition to commit itself to a principle and a point of view solemnly and deliberately, that is what the Conservative Opposition did in the context of the debates upon the European Assembly Elections Bill.
What was the view which, so solemnly, Lord Whitelaw declared was the view of the shadow Cabinet, of which he was a prominent member? I beg leave to remind the House of some of the words which he used. He said:
First, it breaches the principle that any election involving the whole of the United Kingdom at the same time should be held on the same basis throughout the United Kingdom.
That was the same point that had been made by the right hon. Member for Witney. Lord Whitelaw said, secondly:
I know only too well that some people in Northern Ireland will seek to suggest that in making this decision we are being less than full-hearted in our commitment that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that is the wish of the majority of its inhabitants.
Lord Whitelaw went on to a most solemn and significant assertion, which is, as I shall presently argue, if possible, more valid today than it was seven years ago when the then right hon. Gentleman made it. He said:
It would be wrong of those people to suggest that, but the overriding importance of this commitment to Northern Ireland is so ingrained in my mind that I am loth to give even the smallest indication of breaking it."—[Official Report, 25 April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 756–945.]
So solemn and sacrosanct was the then right hon. Gentleman's view, so vital was that commitment, that on the ground of even the appearance of it being shaken by the deliberate introduction of a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom in an election spanning the whole of the kingdom—on that ground alone—he rejected what stands in the Act to this day.
It was upon that basis that, when the final decision was taken to keep this provision in the Bill—a year later on 2 February 1978 — the Opposition took their stand. Again I shall trouble the House with a speech on which the Conservative party, Her Majesty's Opposition of the day, went into the Lobby. The right hon. Member for Witney said:
Our belief, and the principle to which we hold, is that where elections are held across the kingdom on the same day, they should be held under the same system in all parts of the kingdom, and that if they are not so held, there will be renewed doubt and renewed speculation in Northern Ireland about the intentions of the House of Commons and the present Government towards the constitutional position of the Province.
Those who heard the intervention in the debate on the order, just concluded, by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will have no difficulty in understanding from that illustration the significance and reality of the anxiety that the right hon. Member for Witney then expressed. He continued:
It is surely dangerous to multiply without necessary cause special arrangements, exceptions and all the ways in which Northern Ireland is made different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely if we persist in treating Northern Ireland as abnormal and exceptional in all circumstances, we make it more likely that the abnormal and exceptional features that exist will be perpetuated. Surely, we should be on the other tack, trying to reduce and confine what is exceptional in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
He concluded, just before the Division took place:
We have thought seriously about this problem over recent months.
Indeed, it was not a snap decision. There had been 18 months or more for the Opposition of the day to make up their minds to debate it. They were not speaking at adventure on an issue that had been sprung upon them at short notice. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
We have concluded that the overriding principle should be that where elections of this kind, quite different from local elections or elections for the Convention or the Assembly, are held for the first time in the United Kingdom, across the Kingdom, on the same day, it would be unwise to hold them in Ulster under a different system from that under which they are held in the rest of the Kingdom." — Official Report, 2 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 749.]
It was on principle—it could not have been designated more clearly as a matter of principle going to the very heart of the position of Northern Ireland in the Kingdom and of the safety of the citizens in that part of the United Kingdom—that the then Opposition voted. Study of the Division list discloses the name, naturally, of the right hon. Gentleman who made that winding-up speech and, naturally, the name of the right hon. Gentleman, now Lord Whitelaw, who was so seized of the importance of the absence of differentiation that it was to him of overriding significance, and also the name of the right hon. Lady who is now the Prime Minister.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Does it include the Minister?

Mr. Powell: I understand that the Minister perused that list while preparing for this debate with some anxiety and was relieved to find that chance, a pair, or perhaps some other occasion——

Mr. A. J. Beith: An abstention.

Mr. Powell: If it was an abstention on principle then, quite uncharacteristically, the Minister concealed it from the knowledge and admiration of the rest of us.
It was not surprising that, in 1980, when the Opposition who took that solemn position of principle had so recently formed the Government and had the power to legislate, Lord Whitelaw, then himself in turn Home Secretary, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who then represented the Antrim, South constituency, on this matter. He pointed out—it is obvious—that it would be quite possible that the EEC might resolve, in a manner which was mandatory on the member states, on a uniform form of election in all of the member states, in which case any domestic variation would be ruled out and the form of the electoral process would be settled for us over our heads by the superior authority of the EEC. But he recognised, did the Home Secretary, as early as December 1980, that that might not happen, as, indeed, it has not happened. He said to my right hon. Friend:
If it becomes clear by early 1983 that new arrangements will not be in effect throughout the Community for the 1984 elections, the Government will have to reconsider the arrangements established by the European Assembly Act 1978.
Nobody who knew what Lord Whitelaw had said on that subject and nobody who knew the position of principle which the then Opposition had taken up could be in any doubt about what was meant by the reconsideration of the arrangements. They knew that the Government were, in accepting what was inevitable, committed by their position to legislate before the next European elections in 1984.
I do not suppose that one could be in possession of a finer collection of incriminating material for a debating success. But my hon. Friends and I are not interested in a debating success. The matter is much too serious. It is, I say again, literally a matter of life and death, and it is the more so because of the increasing clarity with which it is perceived. There is a real relationship between the continuance of terrorist violence in the Province and the continued existence of doubt as to the sincerity, firmness and reliability of the declared intention of successive Governments of the United Kingdom.
I do not for a moment believe that Lord Whitelaw, in his distant cloud-capped palace, has changed the sentiments that he expressed repeatedly and strongly in 1977 and 1978. I am equally sure that the lady who is not for turning is of the same mind now as when she went through the Lobby on 2 February 1978. It is not characteristic of the right hon. Lady to be pushed out of a position of principle that she has deliberately and consciously taken up. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that in recent months we have noted in Northern Ireland that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have more and more clearly been proclaiming that the key to peace and stability in Northern Ireland is the conviction—a conviction to be held not only in this House, not only in this part of the kingdom, but in all sections in Northern Ireland, in the Irish Republic and elsewhere in the world—that, for the foreseeable future, the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is not in any manner of doubt, that it will continue as far ahead as can be foreseen. Therein—and this has been a perception for which we have had to wait

too long—the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have repeatedly declared, lies the key to reassurance, to peace and to the ending of violence.
In those circumstances, and in the light of the very reasons why, in 1978, the Conservative party and the Prime Minister herself voted against PR in Northern Ireland at European elections, not only have we a right to demand, but we are entitled in common sense and reason to expect, that even now the Government will do what they are in all moral duty committed to do, and amend the law for the European Assembly elections so as to bring it into conformity with the principle in which surely they still believe.
I am not asking for anything that is impracticable. Governments, even in periods when they are not always successful, not always presenting a brassy front of unbroken confidence and success, are still very powerful creatures. It is in the power of any Government to pass through both Houses in a short time a Bill to embody a principle to which they are committed, for which most of their members have personally voted, and a principle which nobody on either side of the House, or any other House, will be able to dare to challenge. There is no section of the House from which hon. Members would rise up and say, "No, we are doing wrong in establishing that a United Kingdom election should be held on a uniform basis throughout the United Kingdom." This would not be legislation that would have to labour its way through months of Committee and controversy. It would be an act of self-evident justice and, in any case, an act that the Government owe to themselves.
Now that the Government have themselves affirmed publicly the connection between the fulfilment of their duties to the people of Northern Ireland and the removal of this blemish from the statute book, we are entitled to say to them, "We expect you to do your duty."

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have before us not only the regulations but the remarks with which the Minister introduced it. I am reminded of his words at the end of the previous debate. He said that the Government were wholly opposed to Sinn Fein, that they would have no truck with it and that people should realise their attitude to it.
It is strange that the action of Sinn Fein at the polling booths will now be bowed to, and the rights of individuals in Northern Ireland will be taken away, because the Government have not the guts to ensure that the law of Parliament is upheld on polling day in Northern Ireland.
I say as a citizen of the United Kingdom that the people whom I represent have the same rights as every other citizen of the United Kingdom. If there are privileges for the citizens of the remainder of the United Kingdom in casting their votes, the people of Northern Ireland—British citizens as they are—must be permitted to have and to exercise those same rights. If the Government are not prepared to ensure that the people have those rights and that they are defended, the Government will have abdicated their authority to Sinn Fein and the IRA. That message needs to be re-echoed in the House. I may not receive support from the Government Benches, but I think it terrible that a Minister of the Crown tells us that the law must be different in Northern Ireland because of the threat and interference of Sinn Fein.
It is all very well for the Minister to pass responsibility on to the chief electoral officer and some poor girl sitting behind the ballot box. Everybody knows the intimidation, threat and actions of Sinn Fein and the IRA. How can those people stand up against that? They cannot do so. Even the SDLP workers are afraid to challenge them because they know that there may be a knock on the door and an assassination. SDLP workers say that it is impossible to work in some areas because of the intimidation and threats.
The Unionist party knows how difficult it is for its workers. For many years the village of Toomebridge was part of my constituency. I know the problem faced by my workers in Toomebridge school because of the threats against them. It was only because they were determined not to give in to intimidation that they were able to carry out their work on polling day. But the Government have abdicated their authority and a right will be taken away from the people of Northern Ireland who wish to exercise their vote.
Some arguments may be used in the House concerning elections that are peculiar and special to Northern Ireland, such as local government elections and elections to the Stormont Assembly. But in overall United Kingdom elections there is absolutely no argument for changing the system for one part of the United Kingdom. It does not happen in elections to this House, but it happens in elections to the European Assembly. The old excuse was given that certain seats must be guaranteed to the minority. The old argument was trotted out that there would probably be proportional representation all over the United Kingdom, following a directive from Europe overriding the wishes of this sovereign Parliament. But that has not happened. The House has the sovereign right to decide what sort of electoral system should be used in the European elections. Why, then, should the House not say that the system used in the United Kingdom for election to the United Kingdom Parliament on a United Kingdom election day should also be in operation in Northern Ireland? What better way could the Government find of defeating Sinn Fein? If Northern Ireland were divided up, it would be impossible for a Sinn Fein candidate to get a seat anywhere in Northern Ireland.
I go a step further. The Minister has said that the Government have declared themselves absolutely against Sinn Fein. Why should the House enact legislation which permits a spokesman of an outlawed organisation to stand in this election? Why does the House not go the whole way and tell the people that if they want the Armalite, the killings and the bombings, if they want to hold their Ard Feis in Dublin and bring a man in to address them, so that they can clap and cheer when a policeman is murdered by their murder gangs, they can have that but they shall not stand for election in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein is only the IRA murderers in an election suit, and the sooner the House awakens to that fact, the better for us all.
The Government have an opportunity to prove themselves. So far they have refused to do so, and the election will be held on the basis not of proportional representation—let us not bluff about that—but on the single transferable vote system, which differs from the other proportional representation systems, and will be different from any other part of the United Kingdom.
We will have the election, and the man who coined the phrase, "the Armalite in one hand, and the ballot in the other hand" — Danny Morrison, the opponent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) — will be in Northern Ireland. Into every home, free of charge, the candidate's election literature will go, advocating violence and paid for by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. Sinn Fein will be given a commission to carry its murder literature into every home in Northern Ireland.
The House has it in its power to stop that. It could say that if people wish to be affiliated to or linked with a proscribed organisation, that is their business, but it is the business of the House to ensure that taxpayers' money is not spent to take that propaganda into every home in Northern Ireland. If there was a real determination to deal with the IRA, that is what the House would do.
I cannot accept when the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State says that the key to the situation is that in the foreseeable future there will be no united Ireland. In my opinion, that is to lull the Unionist population asleep. Let them say, "All is well", and then behind that vow, that declaration, go on eroding the foundation and basis of our Unionist heritage. That is what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think.
We heard tonight that we will have some name changes and a wonderful number of different names in Northern Ireland. They will all point the way to Dublin; the way to an all-Ireland settlement; and the way to the surrender of the principles of the Union. It is because of that that my colleagues and I will be voting against the regulations.

Mr. A. J. Beith: We are all entitled to ask from our different standpoints precisely why the Government have brought before the House tonight a set of regulations for the Northern Ireland elections which are so radically different from those which they brought forward for elections in the rest of the United Kingdom just over a week ago.
It is rather hard to press the task for explaining the matter on the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because in a previous existence he was known to advocate systems of proportional representation, not just for Northern Ireland but for the rest of the United Kingdom as well. That is to his credit. It is almost an accident that he finds himself having to make this defence. Hon. Members are right to look deeper to find the justification for it.
I do not believe that I can share the explanation proffered by Unionists on both sides of the House, but it does not reside with the particular Under-Secretary who replies to the debate——

Rev. Ian Paisley: Minister of State.

Mr. Beith: —the Minister of State, who replies to the debate. If we look back at the debate which took place just over a week ago, it is surprising to reflect that there will go through the Lobbies later tonight, in support of a system of proportional representation for the European elections in Northern Ireland, at least some of those people who went through the opposite Division Lobby then to oppose a proportional representation system for the same elections in another part of the United Kingdom.
I tried at that time to obtain some explanation, and perhaps we can go a little further tonight and do so. When


the orders for Great Britain were debated I put precisely the same question to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He said, speaking of me:
He is only too quick to condemn the system under which we have been content to run our elections for generations and which has survived successive Governments, and to embrace another system.
In the face of that comment I asked the Under-Secretary:
Why, then, are the Government enforcing precisely the system that he criticises in Northern Ireland?
His reply was,
That is not a good point.
I shall quote a little more of the reply to obtain its full intellectual depth:
If that is the full extent of the hon. Gentleman's reflections on Northern Ireland, it is as well that he is not the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland." — [Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1159.]
For my sins I used to be. The phrase that I quoted is the full extent of the Under-Secretary's explanation as to why his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would, 10 days later, find himself defending precisely the opposite of that which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was advancing then. I hope that we obtain a better explanation from the Minister of State tonight.
When one seeks explanations for why the Government are proposing proportional representation, they tend to come in a sinister variety. One presumes that the Government support, as I do, the operation of proportional representation in elections of many kinds in Northern Ireland in the belief that it is a way to ensure that the range of opinion present within that Province is represented in the bodies to which those elections are sending members, and that majority and minority opinion in the Province will be effectively represented thereby. But if that is so, why is that Province alone singled out for that particular treatment? Why is that privilege one that should be extended only to people in that Province and not to those taking part in the same election in other parts of the United Kingdom?
The explanations that one might seek are worrying. Could it be that the presence of violence and of gunmen operating in the community in some way creates and strengthens the resolve to give representation to minorities in the community? It is a very extraordinary proposition for the Government to adopt, and a very strange message to give people in the rest of the United Kingdom, that if people feel that the electoral system does not represent them they should look at a province where there is violence, because that is the sort of place where electoral systems are changed. That is a very curious message to give.
For a slighlty less dramatic but equally sinister explanation of the puzzle, one could look at the fact that there is something that distinguishes the European elections in Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is simply that neither the Conservative nor the Labour party will be standing in those elections, or exposing themselves to the system being used there. They may therefore be content to apply the system in the rest of the United Kingdom——

Rev Ian Paisley: What about the Liberal party?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should know very well that the Liberal party has stood at a great many elections

in Northern Ireland, and has a long record of taking part in them and of supporting the use of proportional representation there.
It is difficult to see anything other than those rather sinister and worrying explanations for the Government's willingness to support a system in one part of the United Kingdom for one set of elections that they do not propose to use in the rest of the United Kingdom. The total failure of the Ministers responsible for the other end of this proposition—those in the Home Department—leaves the Minister of State with a very difficult task of explanation.
I shall support the regulations tonight, because I believe that such a system should be used in Northern Ireland, but I shall find myself in the Division Lobby with some hon Members whose actions will be very difficult to explain. They will have gone through the Division Lobbies in one week to oppose the use of proportional representation and 10 days later they will be in the Lobby to support it, in exactly the same election, on the same day, for another part of the United Kingdom. If the Minister of State can explain that, he has a genius I have yet to witness.

Mr. John David Taylor: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has successfully exposed the humbug of those on the Government Benches in their attitude towards PR and the STV.
I shall vote against the regulations, not simply because of the single transferable vote system which we are using but because we are using two systems within the United Kingdom. That is the principle that we are opposed to. We are opposed to the fact that a system which applies to Great Britain is not automatically applied to the whole of the United Kingdom when the whole of the United Kingdom is voting on one day to elect 81 members to the European Assembly. Of course, it is an Assembly and not a parliament, and that point must be underlined again and again. It is an Assembly wih no real Executive, no Opposition, no parliamentary structure, no Prime Minister and very little executive power. That is one of the weaknesses of assemblies and of the present limitation of the powers of our Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont.
In our earlier debate, when we discussed proportional representation, we showed how it would help the Provisional Sinn Fein in the local elections in 1985. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, the STV was introduced into the last European elections to guarantee a seat for the minority. That was the political bias behind that decision. But once again that type of thinking is rebounding on the Government. It now appears that the minority will elect a member of the Provisional Sinn Fein to the European Assembly in this year's elections. It is now touch and go between the SDLP and the Provisional Sinn Fein as to who will represent the so-called minority. By that I mean the political, not the religious, minority. The Nationalist minority is now having a great contest between the SDLP and the Provisional Sinn Fein. Thus, yet again, the Government are embarking on a system of electoral rules for Northern Ireland that will assist the forward movement of the Provisional Sinn Fein party.
The regulations will assist the Provisional Sinn Fein in a second way—by the increase in election expenses. It is strange that, although the same electoral system does not exist in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, automatically


the increase in election expenses is extended to Northern Ireland. The Minister gives inflation as his excuse and recommends that the allowable expenses for European candidates in Northern Ireland shall be increased from £25,000 to £43,000.
Few political parties in Northern Ireland can find £43,000 to fight a European election. Certainly the Official Unionist party and the SDLP cannot find that money. Not enough plastic buckets exist in Northern Ireland for the DUP to find it, and the alliance parties certainly could not raise that money.
Only one party could raise £43,000—the party which supports the raiding of banks and post offices. Once again I refer to the Provisional Sinn Fein. That is the one party which will take advantage of this monstrous increase in allowable election expenses. Once again the Government are aiding Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland elections.
Polling day in Europe varies throughout the 10 European countries involved. In the Protestant reformed countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, polling day is on Thursday 14 June. In the Roman Catholic countries such as Italy and France, polling day is on Sunday 17 June. The law states that the count cannot take place until polling has taken place in all countries — after the close of polling stations on the Sunday evening.
When will the count take place? According to the debate on the Great Britain regulations last week, the Government are not to state when the count will be but will leave it to the discretion of returning officers. The count could take place, therefore, on the Sunday evening. The Ulster Unionist party wants an assurance from the Government that the count in Northern Ireland will not commence on a Sunday.
Another interesting item in the regulations applies only to Northern Ireland because of the strange electoral system. After polling is over, a verification of votes must take place before the count is begun. To save time, is it possible for verification to take place between the close of polling and the count, which I hope will commence on Monday 18 June? That would mean that Northern Ireland votes would be known more quickly and the other United Kingdom seats would not be announced many hours before we know the result of our first count. We have to have various counts because of the electoral system.
Schedule 1 also refers to the limitation of broadcasting outside the United Kingdom. Radio stations, both legal and illegal, exist outside the United Kingdom. In Ireland Radio Telefis Eireann as well as illegal stations operate. If any of the Northern Ireland candidates participate in programmes put out by stations outside the United Kingdom, will they be infringing election broadcasting laws?

Mr. Peter Robinson: In many ways this debate follows naturally from the previous debate on the regulations, for the weakness in them is repeated in these regulations. Northern Ireland must again suffer the injustice of a different system of election from that of other parts of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who sits alone on the Liberal Bench, believes the different system to be a privilege for the people of

Northern Ireland, but the people believe otherwise. If he thinks that it is such a privilege, I hope that he will not leave it to some poor soul in the Liberal party in Northern Ireland, which represents only a handful of people and which gets only a couple of handfuls of votes but that he will come across to Northern Ireland as their champion, put his name forward for election, and reap the benefit of the privilege of what he calls proportional representation.
We in Northern Ireland know that the purpose behind the system is a conditioning process so that we can be likened to the Republic of Ireland, which uses that system of election to the European Assembly. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) say that it is not a parliament; of course, it is not. Therefore, I hope that he will no longer call himself an MEP, but an MEA. The hon. Gentleman may think that the latter is similar to the noise made by a cat, but I hope that he will continue to declare that it is not a parliament and will go a step further by declaring that he hopes that it never becomes one.
It was interesting to observe the dexterity of the Minister, who, only two hours ago, was able to argue in the debate on the Northern Ireland electoral areas commissioner that the result of proportional representation becomes so distorted with less than five seats that we should not have it. Now he says that we should have proportional representation for three seats. It is one thing to argue, from one week to the next, that one part of the United Kingdom should not have proportional representation but that another should, but if the Minister can argue, within two hours, the reverse of his previous argument we must give him credit for his acrobatics.
When replying to the debate, will the Minister give us some guidance about the methods that can be employed under the statute whereby the present abuse of the franchise in Northern Ireland can be stemmed? Is he saying that a power can be employed by the police or the presiding officer whereby those who come to the polling booths must prove some identity? Is it possible to require voters to produce identity without primary legislation in the House? It has been known for many years that there has been electoral abuse in Northern Ireland. It did not occur only last week or when this legislation was drafted. It has continued for many years and was highlighted by the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election and each election since then. The Secretary of State and the Minister have been aware of the abuse of the electoral system in Northern Ireland. They have received representations from the political parties in Northern Ireland, but now the Minister tells us that he will not take action at this election.
That fact reflects once again what we believe to be the underlying and sinister motive of the Minister in introducing this obnoxious system—to assist and prod on the Sinn Fein movement. Many people would accept that a preponderance of the votes cast for Sinn Fein were cast by those who died at least in the past five years, or by those who came to the polling station to discover that, while they were working, someone had cast their votes, or by those who did not go out to vote at all and who never discovered that someone had voted in their absence. Many votes are put into the ballot box by that method. If hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland visited the Province on election day to see Sinn Fein in action, their eyes would be opened and they would join Northern Ireland Members in demanding that that abuse of the


electoral system should be stopped. They should do that instead of coming up with lame excuses at midnight as to why this action has not been taken.
In the previous debate, the Under-Secretary said that the modified list system would not be beneficial and showed that he did not understand the meaning of that system. The modified list system operates on single-Member constituencies. A number of such constituencies covering the whole of Northern Ireland elect Members on the same basis as the first-past-the-post system which operates for the United Kingdom Parliament. In addition there is what can most easily be described as a topping-up system, so that proportionality on the overall result can be gained through a list, thereby giving us the benefit of the individual constituency worker who is closely aligned to those he is representing and a manageable constituency rather than the multi-Member constituencies that the Under-Secretary is forcing us to have by a system of proportional representation.
Some people, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, take to constituency work. Some do not so enthusiastically take to that task and can put their name on a list and leave themselves free for portfolio work or another job that they might do for their party in the body to which they are elected. There are advantages in the UUUC suggestion of a modified list.
I do not believe that there is much enthusiasm among hon. Members to go into the Lobby to support the Under-Secretary. I suspect that if he had not been paired off that fateful day when others had to put their names on the voting list, the Under-Secretary would have voted in the same manner as many hon. Members will vote on this measure. Some hon. Members doubt whether the Under-Secretary supports the Prime Minister on this issue, but I hope, for his sake, that he supports her on at least some other issues.
The issue of Sinn Fein has been raised. The Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary and the Government as a whole must soon make a decision on whether Sinn Fein can legitimately stand in elections while subscribing to the principle of the Armalite in one hand and the ballot paper in the other. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to condemn in the House Sinn Fein's policies and what Sinn Fein stands for and to say outside, as the Secretary of State has said, that its members are enemies of democracy. He is opening a democratic system for Sinn Fein to abuse while the Government have the power within their hands to stop Sinn Fein abusing the democratic system and let democracy work in Northern Ireland.
I shall be in the Lobby voting against the regulations. I do not accept that the electoral system for Northern Ireland should differ from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not accept that there should be different regulations governing Northern Ireland elections than obtain elesewhere in the United Kingdom. The vote will give me the opportunity to vote against the principle of EEC membership. I shall vote against the Under-Secretary and for the principle propounded by the Prime Minister. I hope that those right hon. and hon. Members who support her, who believe that she is doing a great job for the country and hold her in high regard, will join us in the Lobby and vote for her policy.

Mr. David Harris: It is perhaps an irony of this debate that Members on both sides have spoken in

disparaging terms about the European Parliament but show considerable enthusiasm for standing in the elections on 14 June. Indeed, I believe that two Official Unionist Members went through quite a tussle to get their party's nomination and I have no doubt that the Democratic Unionist hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will put in a massive effort to retain a seat in the European Parliament which he apparently disparages so much.
I intervene with some hesitation in a debate on a Northern Ireland matter. My purpose is to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for an explanation. I have always been fascinated and somewhat baffled by what would happen if there were a European Parliament by-election in Northern Ireland. I believe that this was touched on in the previous debate. Would it be held on the single transferable vote principle or on the first-past-the-post principle? That does not seem to be laid down in the regulations or in the primary legislation.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who spoke for the Liberal party, did not make out a great case for proportional representation for the European Parliament elections or make great claims for the merits of that system. I have served in the European Parliament for nearly five years. I am not seeking re-election, as I believe that one job is enough for anyone. I do not understand how Northern Ireland representatives can have not just dual, but a triple mandate—but they are different, of course.

Mr. McCusker: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, why did he fight the general election last year?

Mr. Harris: I do not think that anyone would have wanted a by-election in the Euro constituency of Cornwall and Plymouth, but I made it perfectly clear that if I was elected to this House I should not stand for re-election to the European Parliament.
During my term in the European Parliament I have noticed some great abuses of the PR system. For example, Members are now sent—not returned—to the European Parliament from the Republic of Ireland without ever having submitted themselves to the electorate in a European election. They were not even on the list, yet they are nominated willy-nilly to serve in Strasbourg.
An equally if not more scandalous abuse of PR is practised by the French Gaullists, who cynically set out to change their membership every year under a system known as the tourniquet. People actually stand, but they go on a rota. I hope that in advocating the merits of PR the Liberal party will address itself to the abuses. The case for PR is presented by the Liberals and the SDP as though it were a wonderfully fair system, whereas our first-past-the-post system is regarded as totally unfair. I hope that they will recognise that there are flaws in PR and that as practised by some countries it is the negation of democracy.

Mr. Beith: I share the hon. Gentleman's criticism of some systems of PR, but may I take it that he therefore favours the STV system? Will he make it clear whether he intends to vote for that system when the Government seek at the end of this debate to enforce it in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Harris: I believe that for this round of European elections we shall be forced to go for PR. As for tonight's vote, unlike the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr.


Powell) I recognise the Government's problems. It is very difficult to change the system now. Indeed, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was less than fair in his concluding remarks. Of course the Government have the power to pass the necessary legislation, but boundary commissioners would then have to decide how three Euro-constituencies for Northern Ireland should be formed, and that takes time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that there have been many months during which such legislation could have been brought forward, since it became evident that there would not be a common system throughout the EEC. As for a Boundary Commission, it is possible for the legislation which altered the position in the 1978 Act to prescribe a grouping of constituencies, as a grouping was prescribed originally for Great Britain in 1978.

Mr. Harris: That is right. Nevertheless, there are statutory procedures, certainly for England, and already in England we have had two sets of proposals from the Boundary Commission for Euro constituencies for the election on 14 June. I do not believe that if the process were started now—or in a few weeks' time, or even in a few days' time — following the passing of special legislation, there would be enough time for Northern Ireland. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would be the first to complain that they were being pressurised in the framing of those constituencies—"framing" was a bad word to have used in this context; I should have referred to the drawing of constituencies — and that things were being rushed through. Some Opposition Members would probably wish to object to the constituencies that were being proposed.
I accept the basic premise that it is wrong to have a different system. I should like to put ale clock back on this matter, but I appreciate the difficulties the Government are facing, the initial mistake having been made, and therefore, with the greatest reluctance, I shall support the Government tonight.

Rev. William McCrea: I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's speech in reply to the debate, so I shall not delay the House. I was delighted that, when speaking on this instrument, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) kept away from his usual "tell me the old, old story" type of Republican propaganda. I understand that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) does not attend the proceedings in this Chamber. It seems that he does not really need to do so because his views are adequately expressed from the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith does himself a great disservice and insults, and continues to insult, the people of Ulster who have been injured, maimed and butchered by the merciless enemies of democracy and of the United Kingdom, not only in Northern Ireland but—as we have witnessed with the Harrods bombing and many others—in this part of the United Kingdom.
It is an absolute disgrace that Her Majesty's Government should permit men who are but the political face of murderers to stand at this election. I had the great privilege of keeping from this House—from winning the

election for Mid-Ulster—the person whom Sinn Fein now will put up and send, if it can, to Europe. If anyone thinks that the electorate of, and the Roman Catholic community in, Northern Ireland will turn away dramatically from Sinn Fein in this election, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We have had the statements of the Sinn Fein cardinal giving his support to the Sinn Fein candidates and excusing people for voting for such people in the past election, and he was no doubt preparing the ground for the coming election in June.
It is a disgrace that Her Majesty's Government, when they have it within their power to stop these men, who are but murderers in another guise, from standing at this election, have not been willing to take this tree by the roots and pull the roots out completely and stop these men from standing. I agree with my hon. Friends, and with the remarks from both sides of the Chamber, on proportional representation. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is the Liberal party's Northern Ireland spokesman. If the Liberal party and the SDP were really anxious about PR and truly believed in it, they would have taken a different approach to the allocation of places for the Select Committees. The Liberal party was willing to outdo its SDP partners in getting all the seats on the Select Committees. It was willing to give the people of Northern Ireland only two seats when it, with fewer Members, was willing to take six or eight seats. If the Liberals believe in PR, they should at least be consistent. However, they have shown no consistency. They have shown nothing but hypocrisy. I was delighted that they were shot down, brought to book and made to bow in submission to the continued objection of Northern Ireland Members. We now believe that we have obtained a fair share of the Select Committee seats.
The Ulster people, the British subjects of Northern Ireland, have suffered so much from the enemies of this kingdom and it is a disgrace that they must suffer another insult tonight. They will have to take from the House, from Her Majesty's Government, the insult of being treated completely differently from the rest of the United Kingdom's citizens. We demand to be treated as equal citizens in this great kingdom. We demand our equal rights. That which is a proper system for voting in the European election in England, Scotland and Wales is appropriate, too, for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I shall join my colleagues in the Unionist camp in dividing the House on the regulations. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made an excellent contribution in drawing the attention of the House to speeches of the past and reminding certain right hon. and hon. Members of their previous stand. It will be most interesting to see how those Members will react tonight.
Earlier in the day we had the agriculture debate and we have been debating Northern Ireland affairs since about ten o'clock. The greatest number of Members in the Chamber has been 22 and the total number of Members is 650. They have not been very interested. I wrote down the comment of one of the Members who voted in the previous Division. As he walked past he said, "No one seems the least bit interested in this today." I think that that sums up the whole story. It is an utter shame and the empty Benches on both sides of the House—most of the Opposition Benches are completely empty—are an insult to the important business of people of the United Kingdom, the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again.
I shall reply briefly to some of the points made in the debate. I imagine that it must be virtually a unique occurrence in this Parliament that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) made his maiden speech on this sitting day, but spoke twice subsequently on the Floor of the House. I hope that he will not make a habit of speaking so frequently in the days to come. The speeches have all been of such a uniformly high quality, although we cannot agree with everything he said, that we all look forward to hearing him again.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two or three points of interest. In particular, he took the Government to task for increasing, to compensate for inflation, the election expenses figure in line with that for the rest of Great Britain. Had we not done so, I suspect that we would have been taken to task by hon. Members for not increasing it in line with that for the rest of Great Britain. We wrote to all Northern Ireland parties last year, including the Ulster Unionist party, to ask, among other things, their views on the proposal that there should be an increase in the permitted election expenses as set out in the regulations, and mentioning the figures. We had no reply from the Official Unionist party.

Mr. John David Taylor: It is impossible to reply until one knows what the electoral system will be. It is only now that we hear that we shall have an electoral system separate from that in Great Britain. If one accepts the principle of a separate electoral system, which is now being proposed, it follows logically that one must have a separate system for election expenses. That is why I am criticising the proposal. One is applying a system for election expenses for a first-past-the-post election to an election in Northern Ireland that will be by STV.

Mr. Scott: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in reading the figures, imagined, despite the points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that we would have a different system for this election. If we had not made the increase the figures would have been out of kilter. Even if the point that the right hon. Gentleman made has any validity, surely some views could have been expressed on alternatives if it was felt that the increase would be as damaging as has been presented to the House today.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, at least it would be inappropriate for the count to start on a Sunday. He asked whether verification of the votes might start earlier so that the count could start on Monday. Those are matters for the chief electoral officer, but I shall make sure that his attention is drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's points. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with foreign radio stations today. I shall write to him as soon as I can establish exactly what the legal position is.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) took me to task on several matters, first for suggesting that, whereas I argued in the previous debate that four members was the minimum number to provide proper proportionality, I was now arguing that three was adequate. It would be difficult to provide that we had five seats in Northern Ireland. Having three seats, and treating

Northern Ireland as a single constituency, will get a more proportional and a fairer result than three first-past-the-post contests.
The hon. Gentleman also asked, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), about the measure that we shall be able to take within the existing procedure to counter personation. We shall do all that we can within the existing procedures and in the closest possible consultation with the chief electoral officer and the Royal Ulster Constabulary——

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman should not be so hasty.
We have also introduced within the regulations other matters that we can tighten up without primary legislation. However, to go further, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, would need primary legislation in the form of a Bill, to be carried through the House. We do not have the time to do that for the elections. I hope that we can count on the hon. Gentleman's support when we introduce it.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister of State for giving way. He said once again, "We shall do all that we can". What can the Minister do?

Mr. Scott: By bringing together those responsible for the conduct and supervision of the elections, including the RUC, we shall be able to apply existing procedures with much more effectiveness than in the past. I should like to correct a misapprehension, unless others have heard news that I have not heard. I am an Under-Secretary, not a Minister of State.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How is it possible, without principal legislation, to withdraw the right to vote on removal whereas any other precautions and provisions cannot be taken without principal legislation?

Mr. Scott: I am not a lawyer but am advised that the original order enables that change to be made and that the legislation on holidaymakers and similar provisions are not covered. I cannot say more than that or argue with it. I am advised that that is the legal position. We have these powers under existing orders.
The right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, North raised the principle that, because there is an abuse in Northern Ireland, it is not appropriate to take special measures to deal with it but that those measures should be achieved by rigorous enforcement of existing law rather than by introducing special measures for one part of the United Kingdom. I accept that, in many ways, that is an unsatisfactory method of dealing with the problem. The Government have been faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Because of the high level of abuse, right hon. and hon. Members will know that the Government have received representations from every constitutional party in Northern Ireland about it. Unless we take special measures, there is a grave risk that we shall undermine the fundamental democratic process in the Province. I do not believe that the removal of an absent vote on the grounds of change of address will disfranchise many voters, if any, but if we allow the process of electoral abuse to continue an increasing number of voters will be disfranchised at Northern Ireland general elections. Hon. Members raise the wider issue of holidaymakers but, fortunately, that is not a matter for discussion today.
I shall now deal, I cannot say with a great deal of relish, with the main burden of what the right hon. Member for Down, South said. The Government have no intention to reintroduce a Bill to provide for a different system of elections in Northern Ireland for the European Assembly. I understand the Unionist stance. It remains the Government's view that, given the different nature of Northern Ireland's political society and its party system as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, there is a strong case for an electoral system in Northern Ireland for the European Assembly which is likely to lead to the election of three MEPs who represent the great majority of voters. The principle that Northern Ireland's three representatives should be elected by STV was established in 1978 when Parliament passed the European —[Interruption.] Not against my vote. Members of the present Government voted in each Lobby on those occasions. We did not make a commitment but there was a strong feeling that there should be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom. There are three reasons. The first was the belief, which was widely held at the time, that there would be a uniform system of elections throughout the EC by the time of the 1984 elections. Secondly, those votes were, in the terminology of the House—we know that all votes are free—free votes. That is why I would not have needed to have been paired on that occasion. There was no Whip. That is why members of the Conservative party could be found in each Lobby on that occasion.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is confusing Divisions on the principle of proportional representation with the Division of 2 February 1978 on the differentiation between the system in Northern Ireland and the system in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think he will find that that was a Division on a decision of the shadow Cabinet and that right hon. and hon. Members were whipped to follow the lead of the leader of the party and the shadow Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will find that he is mistaken.

Mr. Scott: If I am, I apologise to the House, and I confess that I have been looking at an earlier Division list rather than the one mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I will establish whether, on a matter of that sort, a party Whip was imposed, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman if I have inadvertently misled the House, which I certainly would not wish to do.
What is clear to those who read back on the history is that, whatever was said from the Opposition Bench when the Conservative party was in opposition, since we came into office, there have been repeated exchanges of corespondence between those in the Home Office who are responsible for these matters and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and those undertakings that were given to him were merely to re-consider the position. No undertaking has ever been given to him in that correspondence since the Conservative party took office that we would change the system to ensure that Northern Ireland followed the same system that——

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided:Ayes, 93, Noes 13.

Division No. 154]
[1.10 am


AYES


Ashby, David
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Beith, A. J.
Merchant, Piers


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Bottomley, Peter
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Brinton, Tim
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Moate, Roger


Conway, Derek
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Cope, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Neubert, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Newton, Tony


Forth, Eric
Normanton, Tom


Fox, Marcus
Norris, Steven


Freeman, Roger
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Powley, John


Galley, Roy
Raffan, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Gregory, Conal
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Rowe, Andrew


Ground, Patrick
Ryder, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Scott, Nicholas


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harvey, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Speller, Tony


Hayes, J.
Spencer, D.


Hayward, Robert
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hind, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Holt, Richard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sumberg, David


Hunter, Andrew
Terlezki, Stefan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Key, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Walden, George


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Waller, Gary


Lang, Ian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Watts, John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lightbown, David
Wolfson, Mark


Lilley, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, David John.



Major, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Maples, John
Mr. David Hunt.


Mather, Carol





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McCrea, Rev William
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


McCusker, Harold
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maginnis, Ken
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nicholson, J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Mr. Clifford Forsythe.


Powell, William (Corby)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Question agreed to.

COMPANIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 79 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Companies Acts (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.— [Mr. Boscawen.]

Question agreed to.

AGRICULTURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Robin Corbett be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Dr. Gavin Strang be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Robin Corbett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Ordered,
That Mr. Geoffrey Robinson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Doug Hoyle be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Community Programme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the community programme. On 19 December 1983, having drawn fourteenth place in the ballot on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I spoke in a debate on charities and mentioned the cuts in the community programme.
The history and background of the change from community enterprise programme to community programme is well known to those of us who have been, and still are, involved in the functioning and mangement of such schemes. I have been the chairman of a scheme named CATO — community and training in Ogwr. Together with a management board of volunteers, and as a registered charity, we embarked on the sole task of establishing jobs within the area—an area that had been ravaged by the first months of a new Tory Government. I need do no more than tell the Minister that Ogwr falls in the catchment area of Port Talbot, where the British Steel Corporation's demanning in 1970–80 meant the loss of 12,000 jobs and an incalculable spin-off as supporting industries shed labour on a substantial scale. Virtually overnight, unemployment shot up from 3·5 per cent. to 10 per cent. and then to 13 per cent. It is now 17 per cent. and in some areas of my constituency, where pits such as Caerau and Coegnant in Maesteg have closed, it stands at 25 to 30 per cent. There is no need to wonder why some of us grab the only straw on offer—that of establishing jobs within the community programme and all the other schemes.
There are few schemes that can match the staff of CATO and its devotion to the purpose of finding useful, productive community projects. There are numerous organisations, from chapels and churches, boys' clubs and welfare halls, that would testify to those achievements. The executive officer, Mr. David Evans, who has worked hard and long, will also testify to the staff's devotion, and he has always had the full co-operation of the officers of the Manpower Services Commission in Pontypridd and Sheffield.
Why was CATO's application for 342 places refused? Why, subsequently, was the 1984 scheme reduced by a further 64 places from the present 264 to 200? Where did those 64 places go? To the Ogwr area, that blow was equivalent to the closing of a factory, and it was announced at the same time as the Wyndham Western colliery in Nantymoel received the MacGregor hatchet. That was one of my first reasons for tabling early-day motion 331 on cuts in the community programme. The early-day motion was supported by 55 hon. Members. There are also amendments signed by 24 hon. Members. Considerable interest has been shown in the early-day motion and the subject of cuts in the community programme.
I know that for the 10 or 15 minutes after I resume my seat we shall hear the same excuses and statistics as we have received in parliamentary answers—that 130,000 jobs will be filled in 1984 and that a further £10 million and £15 million will ensure that they are available; and that funding will be made available so that they can continue for a further two years, and so on. We have heard all that


before. I have enough answers from the Secretary of State for Employment to keep the House up all night. The Minister and I have to suffer the lot of staying up most of the night to debate this subject.
I should like a response from the Minister telling me about some positive action to be taken to create jobs. I shall, no doubt, receive statistics and a repetition of what we already know. I shall give some statistics on unemployment that should be recorded.
The unemployment unit, in a report prepared by Adrian Sinfield, states that the real total of unemployed is over 4 million, one third more than official statistics reveal. Mr. Sinfield claims that 356,000 people were removed from the lists from October 1982 because they did not or could not claim benefit. He says:
The extent of misery and hardship caused by unemployment and the Government's failure to remedy the situation are being disguised by statistical manipulation.
When the Government took office, there was an average of 5 per cent. unemployment. It has now rocketed to 16 per cent. One in eight are on the dole. In London it was only 3·4 per cent. Now it is 10 per cent., the highest figure since records began some 30 years ago. Even with the manipulated and doctored figures to which I have referred, there are 400,000 people unemployed in London. We read of 12,500 people trying for 60 vacancies at Birmingham's new £60 million airport terminal, and of the 500 women seeking 50 part-time jobs in the market town of Sudbury when the jobs are only for three weeks at £50 a week.
The CBI claims that only 7,000 jobs a month will be lost in the coming quarter compared with 11,000 a year ago and 50,000 a couple of years ago. It does not mean that the patient is getting better; he is sinking more slowly. We hear every week of the deaths of patients due to the lack of funds to employ nurses. We hear this from the Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester to the Heath hospital in Cardiff, and yet thousands of doctors and nurses are on the dole.
Some of the reasons for the unemployment are to be found in the decline in the United Kingdom's trade in manufactured goods, which created in 1983 a deficit of over £5 billion, the first such deficit in 200 years. That is the result of this Government's economic policies. But they are only part of the reason for the massive unemployment the like of which this country has not seen for 200 years.
I have no wish to refer only to my area or my community programme scheme. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the cutbacks in their areas. Early-day motion 377 refers to yet another vast area that has received cuts. If, as the Minister will probably try to prove, there have not been any cutbacks, will he tell me where 64 places in CATO have landed up? Why have we not reached the target in Wales? They must have been allocated outside Wales. Will the Minister say why 130,000 places were not reached in 1983? Whose fault was it? Was it that of the Manpower Services Commission for being enthusiastic, or that of the organisers of the scheme for working flat out to provide the jobs that the Government's economic policies have taken away by the thousands? Was it the fault of the Treasury for underestimating the cost, or that of the Cabinet Ministers for not respecting their proper

responsibilities at the time? Perhaps they were paying attention to matters of a more personal nature, or concentrating on trade union bashing instead of job creation. Let us have the facts.
For example, 134 more jobs could be available for my constituents if the scheme submitted had been accepted. But it is dreadful to lose 64 jobs from the number that we had in 1983 and then to hear the Minister boasting about the scheme as if it was a lifeline for those out of work for over and above 52 weeks. Last week, the January unemployment figures published by the Government—the ones that are manipulated and doctored—stated that there had been a 120,000 increase in the number of unemployed in one month. Does not the Minister realise or understand the significance of those figures? Despite all the effort, expense, administration and parliamentary work of creating 130,000 jobs through the Minister's community programme, overnight, in one month, we find, when the unemployment figures are announced, that they have been lost.
What a desperate situation the Government are in. Banana skins abound and no one knows who will be next to take a skid. Will it be the Foreign Secretary, or could it be the Minister, or the Tory party chairman? I noticed the Minister's eyes light up just then. Perhaps he was thinking of the promotion for loyal and trusty servants. However, the Minister referred to Dickens' great work when he likened one hon. Member to Oliver Twist—"Please Sir, I want some more." The Minister said:
That is the constant theme of those who stand on the sidelines."—[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 441.]
I suggest that the Minister should continue his reading of that great work. He will find that Oliver was one of the first trainees on a predecessor of the youth training scheme. He will recall that the child, desperate with hunger, reckless with misery, advanced from the table where he had one porringer of gruel to the master basin and, spoon in hand, said:
'Please sir, I want some more.
There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.
For more," said Mr. Limbkins. "Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more after he had eaten a supper allotted by the dietary?" "He did, sir," replied Bumble.… Oliver was ordered into instant confinement; and a bill was next morning posted on the outside of the gate, offering a reward of five pounds to anybody who could take Oliver Twist off the hands of the parish.
That is an extract from chapter 2 of "Oliver Twist".
I have no intention of seeing people return to those Victorian values. Where does the Minister stand on the sidelines? What positive action is he demanding to improve the lot of the present-day Olivers? Has the Minister read the report published in the November bulletin of the unemployment unit which says that men out of work for more than a year are 18 times more likely to commit suicide than men with jobs? It states that there is grave cause for alarm. It also says that already 35 per cent. of unemployed males have been out of work for more than a year. It predicts that the figure will climb to 40 per cent. in the next two years.
Mr. Stephen Platt of the medical research council for the study of psychiatry at the Royal Edinburgh hospital calls for urgent Government action to reduce unemployment. Is the Minister aware that one in three of the unemployed have been without work for more than a year? That is well over one million people.
Did the Minister read about the young man from Liverpool who killed himself because he could not get a job? His story was reported in a Daily Mirror front page article which said that 23-year-old Gary Keeley left his mother a note asking her to forgive him for his selfish action, telling her that he had lost his fight to live, with his pride eroded for the past two years. What sort of society is this that places young people in such agony, misery and degradation that pride and self-determination are denied them? The Prime Minister's son can fail his accountancy examination and because his name is Mark Thatcher he can clinch a deal in Oman — with his mother around—for £3 million. What is the future for young men when one million people have been out of work for one year, some for two years, some for three or even four years? What future for them when jobs worth £60 a week are cut from schemes within the community programme? It is a national disgrace. It is a bleak world for those living in the misery of a Tory Britain.
The Policy Studies Institute states that even skilled workers cannot get unskilled jobs. About 30 per cent. of families have another member who is jobless, 56 per cent. of people live in below-standard housing and 85 per cent. depend on supplementary benefit to maintain the minimum decencies of life.
Government Members should try living on £26·80 on the dole—one of them has just found out what it is like. Then they might stop pretending that the unemployed do not want to find a job and they might start thinking positively about how to provide jobs.
I have a message for the Minister. People out of work need a message of hope. They want the positive creation of jobs — real jobs — to restore their dignity. We in Wales have suffered for more than a century. We are asking for basic rights within a democracy. We want the right to work for a reasonable wage, for a bowl of soup —and for another if we are hungry.
The Minister's responsibility is to ensure more jobs and more funding for his community programme if the demand is there. We want more job creation schemes. We have the skilled work force. We have an abundance of bricklayers, plasterers, plumbers, carpenters, painters and electricians who are wasting away on the dole. The Government's responsibility is to provide jobs for them, not to demoralise the workers and people and to condemn them to a life in which death offers them the only relief possible under the present Administration.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am pleased that at last we are able to discuss this important matter. I remember all too well the night in December when we did not manage to hit it off and when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised the subject of the community programme in relation to his constituents.
The hon. Member was kind enough to say that I had quoted Oliver Twist saying, "Please sir, I want some more." The hon. Gentleman did not understand what I was saying. I was trying to explain that those words do not work in a genuine market economy. They do not work, because one must ask where the "more" comes from.
In his concluding remarks the hon. Gentleman said that the Government have an obligation to provide jobs. The Government cannot, as such, provide jobs. However, they can provide a structure in which jobs can be created. As

the hon. Gentleman will know, jobs are created only when a product or a service is provided at a cost or of a quality which he, I and other people wish to buy.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out—I understand it—the difficulties facing his constituents in the transition from the traditional industries, such as steel and coal, to the new industries in his part of Wales. They are difficulties because moving from old to new industries is bound to be a painful process, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman—perhaps it was only rhetoric on his part—that I do not take kindly to his expectation of my using what he chose to describe as the usual excuses for the community programme. He referred to what he described, in terms of the unemployment figures, as statistical disinformation. If he wishes to do that, he should substantiate his case more carefully.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that each day of the week, 365 days a year, 20,000 people find a job? Is he further aware that in manufacturing industry 1,000 jobs are created each day of the week? Is he further aware that last week the CBI, having consulted many of its member firms, came to the conclusion that the prospects for the future are good? Investment and output are up, and orders are the best for five years. I hope that he understands that, in terms of the major economic strategy being followed by the Government, that must be good news for the immediate and long-term future.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a strong personal interest in the community programme. We have corresponded and discussed the matter at intervals, and I am extremely grateful for his interest in it. As I hope he knows, the community programme is an important part of the Government's strategy to help back into the world of work those who have been unemployed for a long time. Our total package costs about £2 billion, and at present 660,000 are involved in the programmes. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government are not discarding those who are bridging the difficulties between the old and traditional industries and the new industries. Far from it; we are doing everything that we can to help them.
The community programme was announced in March 1982 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a successor to the community enterprise programme. It provides full and part-time jobs, as opposed to only full-time jobs under the community enterprise programme. It began to get going in October 1982 and, compared with the community enterprise programme, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, had 30,000 places, the community programme has a target of 130,000 places. By the end of December 1983, of those 130,000 places 116,000 had been filled.
We had a faster take-up and expansion from the 30,000 community enterprise places than we had anticipated. Of the 116,000 filled places, a little more than 39,000 were full-time, and a little more than 76,000 were part-time. I am happy to say that all those places have been filled without difficulty. Contrary to what some had said at the outset of the programme, part-time places were acceptable.
However one looks at them, the economic resources—the taxpayers' funds—that have been committed to the programme are substantial. In 1983–84 they amount to £403 million and in 1984–85 to about £570 million. I hope


the hon. Gentleman understands that the Government have a major commitment to the long-term unemployed in terms of the amount of money being set aside.
The programme sponsors, to which I should like to pay tribute, are the local authorities, which are sponsoring about 47 per cent., and the voluntary organisations, which are sponsoring about 40 per cent. For an application to be successful the sponsor must come forward with work done on behalf of and for the benefit of the community, not work done in the normal course of events. We do not want —I use the jargon—to have substitution.
The eligible participants in the programme are those who are 25 and above and have been unemployed for more than 12 out of the previous 15 months and, in the 18 to 24 age group, those who have been unemployed for six out of the previous nine months. The programme rightly benefits, on the margin, the younger age group—the 18 to 24-year-olds. In fact, 54 per cent. of the entrants into the programme are in the 18 to 24 age group.
Last November we announced that the programme would be extended to October 1986 and that the target of 130,000 filled places would be retained. Despite the announcement then of an additional £10 million being allocated to the programme, we had to put a freeze on it because of the speed with which the programme had advanced. A freeze, of course, is followed by a thaw and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, on 10 January we were able to lift the moratorium by making available a further £15 million. The original target of 130,000 filled places can thus be reached by the spring of this year.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have to plan the programme on a nationwide basis. It is therefore

important that allocations are allotted to regions according to the number of long-term unemployed. To achieve the correct balance, there may have to be some revision or rejigging to ensure that the programme is in the right context in the right areas.
The hon. Gentleman understandably spoke of his commitment to CATO, which has been a community programme agent since January last year. That programme has 264 filled places at present. I believe that there are two other schemes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—one sponsored by Ogwr borough council, with 65 approved and filled places, and another sponsored by the Bettws boys club with 12 approved and filled places.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the three programmes together represent 16 per cent. of the mid-Glamorgan filled place target figure. He will understand that not only in Wales and in the United Kingdom but in his constituency competition for places is intense. As I have said to him both in conversation and in letters, I appreciate that in September last year CATO was considering an expansion from 264 to 342 places, but I hope he will agree that that proposal was never approved.
The question which the hon. Gentleman has posed is whether there should be a reduction in the number of places in the light of competing bids. I can tell him that I am even now considering how best to proceed on this point——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes to Two o'clock.